CC 3827

03 01 05

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

February 22, 2005

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Mike Gibson at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 22, 2005, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Pastor David Logan.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Carmody.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Absent: None

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Lester to approve the minutes of Administrative Conference, February 7, 2005 and Council Meeting, February 8, 2005. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor which are required by law.

Reports:

Councilman Gibson: Mayor, do you have anything for today?

Mayor Hightower: No Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to recognize a special group of young men and women. And when I call their names, if I could ask them to come up front please. We’re going to start with Katie Hay, Kirsten Armentrout, Brett Havener, Desiree Mingo, Jasmine Green, and Parker Rossum. Is Parker here? These young folks, City Council and City of Shreveport, these folks, these young people were the winners of the Martin Luther King Essay Contest that was sponsored in District A with myself, the Martin Luther King Community Development Corporation, the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association and Cooper Road, USA. They did essays regarding the Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech and what does that speech mean to them today. And we had a number of entries and these are our winners. They did an excellent job. I’m so very proud of them. Their parents are here and they’re so very proud of them, and I just wanted to take the time to bring them down and tell them, and let the City of Shreveport know that we say a lot of things about our kids, but we do have young people who are doing a good job. They write well and more importantly, they understand the spirit of Martin Luther King’s dream and how it affects our society. And looking out into this cross section, and please understand I had absolutely nothing to do with the selection of the winners, the fact is we have a great cross section of the width and breadth of this City. And I’m so very proud of them. So, I would like if you would state your name and the school that you attend, and then we’ll turn it over to Ms. Hazel to give us a couple of words as well.

Mr. Parker: I’m Parker Rossum and I attend Huntington High School.

Councilman Lester: Thank you sir.

Ms. Hay: I’m Katie Hay and I go to Youree Drive Middle School.

Ms. Armentrout: I’m Kirsten Armentrout and I go to Caddo Middle Magnet.

Mr. Havener: I’m Brett Havener, I go to Youree Drive Middle School.

Ms. Mingo: I’m Desiree Mingo, I go to Booker T. Washington High School.

Ms. Green: And I’m Jasmine Green, I attend Booker T. Washington High School.

Councilman Lester: And we’re just very proud of them for their accomplishments. Writing is sometimes a lost art, but they did an excellent job in their presentations. And Ms. Hazel Philips, Southern University.

Ms. Philips: Thank you very much Councilman Lester. Again, I echo what he said about the students very valiant efforts at capturing what Dr. King really looked forward to when he wrote his “I have a dream” speech. And I do look forward to the students participating again, we do plan to have another essay contest. And again, thank you so much for this recognition for our students.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Ms. Philips and I know that there are proud parents. If the proud parents could - - - I’m sorry, they’re back there. Okay, alright. Well, I’ll come down. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Mayor, could you join me please?

Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel

Mr. Antee: We’ve passed out on Friday the payment update. In addition to the payment update, we’ve passed out responses to the questions you had Mr. Chairman. Also included in that was a letter from Laura Poche, the attorney for us on this Convention Center, the most recent Convention Center lawsuit, the Attorneys General’s opinion. Also what we passed out was a copy of the actual lawsuit. As far as the lawsuit is concerned, we think it’s a bogus, frivolous lawsuit. Mr. Pesnell’s here, he can answer any questions if he chooses to. But, either he intentionally ignored two specific Senate amendments, that came from the Senate Finance Committee that was approved and voted on by both Senator Malone and Representative Waddell, who were in the legislature at that time, that specifically changed our capital outlay request that we had made in October that was part of the original bill that was filed, stating it was for the parking garage, and specifically changed it to allow for the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel. Ignored the back up data and letters back and forth from Facilities and Planning prior to the final adoption of the bill. Which the final adopted bill contained the amendments that changed it from the parking garage and $11.5 million to the Convention Center Hotel and other facilities for $12,000,000. So, there’s no question what the legislative intent was, based on those two specific amendments that you cannot find anywhere in the lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Pesnell on behalf of the downtown hotel owners. The taxes. There’s been an issue raised in another one of the 12th hour stall tactics by those who are trying to fight the hotel, stating that the hotel could be subject to property tax. We’ve got an Attorneys General’s opinion that clearly states that if the land is owned by the City, and the building is owned by private, for profit entity, then the land is not taxable. But the private entity would have to pay property tax on the improvements. We’ve got that right here with Harrah’s and Hollywood. The difference in that in this case is the City owns the hotel. The City will be the beneficiary of any revenues of the hotel. And, in a case that was tried by Mr. Pesnell, which he lost and the City won, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a hotel which is this hotel is for a public purpose. And with the Attorneys General’s opinion, if it’s for a public purpose, by a public entity, not a private for profit entity, but a public entity, then it’s tax exempt. So that information is being presented to the Attorneys for the tax assessor. The Mayor and I met with the tax assessor last week. He has in no way said it was or was not taxable. He was provided some Attorneys General’s opinions with a total mis-statement or a lie, of what this process was. And has not rendered according to him, has not rendered any opinion, but has forwarded to his attorneys. I’ve been in contact with the attorneys, provided them with the site for the City of Shreveport versus Chance which clearly says the hotel can be for a public purpose as well as the statutory authority clearly showing that the hotel will be owned by the City for economic development. This attempt by the downtown property owners and a few politicians to have the property tax assessed to the hotel, was another 12th hour effort right before the Bond Commission to try and misrepresent, put a bunch of smoking mirrors and other things in front of the Bond Commission to try and cloud the issues. Which is yet another one of the many, many untruths that have been put out there. There’s also been submitted and passed around an article about the Houston Hyatt Hotel. And if anybody hasn’t seen that article, we can get them a copy. But I think the - - -

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Antee, I’ve asked several of my colleagues if some point during the meeting we could get a copy of that. I haven’t seen it, and several others haven’t seen it. So, I’d appreciate a copy of it as you’re going through your explanation. Thank you.

Mr. Antee: We’d be glad to. But I think the article in the Dallas paper over the Hyatt Hotel, will shed the light why the Smiths and Mr. Raspberry are fighting so hard to keep this hotel from going up. They’re trying to make it sound in their emails that they’re sending out to people that the Hyatt Hotel was the Convention Center Hotel for Houston. That’s not the case. The Convention Center for the Houston- - - the hotel for the Houston Convention Center is the new Hilton of Americas. And the last five or six years, I forget exactly how many years, the downtown hotel rooms in Houston went from 1800 to 5500. Tripled. Part of that was the new Hilton Convention Center Hotel. As a result, the Hyatt Hotel, which is a 35 year old facility (does that ring a bell with some of our downtown hotels?) has seen their business fall off. But it’s not necessarily because of the brand new Hilton Convention Center Hotel, it’s because of all the other new hotels that have come in along the same time and in conjunction with the new Convention Center Hotel. The Hyatt has been put into foreclosure, which according to the article is a friendly foreclosure and it’s no wonder that people are staying at the newer, more modern hotels closer to the convention center (does that not ring a bell?) than at the 35 year old Hyatt hotel. Now, it doesn’t take much to figure out why Mr. Smith and Mr. Raspberry and Mr. Harrison Smith are doing everything they can to protect their two hotels. One they own completely, the other they just own the ground and have whatever interest in the Holiday Inn. And I think this Hyatt foreclosure in Houston, is very similar on a much larger scale than what we have here. With that I’ll answer any questions about the lawsuit, the taxes or anything else with the Convention Center.

Councilman Green: Yes sir, Mr. Antee at this point, how much money have we, the City spent with attorney fees up to date?

Mr. Antee: As of last week, we received a bill for $22,000, that I think carried us up through the end of January, just on the two lawsuits filed by the Smiths, that were dismissed. One in Caddo and one in Baton Rouge. At that time, we had not been served or had not seen the most recent one, which they are working on now. So, to date, it’s been $22,000 and probably close to that amount will be billed in February.

Councilman Green: So, basically I guess to - - - is there a way we could estimate about how much this is gonna cost, depending on how long to do it?

Mr. Antee: No, it just depends on whether or not - - - a letter’s been sent and that’s what we gave you a copy of, by our attorneys to Mr. Pesnell pointing out, giving him the opportunity to voluntarily dismiss it. Because 1) it’s in the wrong venue again. And then several other reasons, it’s my understanding he responded to the attorneys asking for more information which they will be including copies of the amendments, 94 and 95 which specifically include the hotel as well as the correspondence between Facilities Planning and the City, showing that even they down in the legislature, prior to final adoption referred to this as the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel. If that is not voluntarily dismissed based on that information and if we have to file, we’ve got about four or five exceptions and motions and things that will be filed. And if those are granted, we will seek sanctions whether or not the court will award sanctions is a whole other issue. But we will vigorously try and get them.

Councilman Green: If, and I’m just asking this just because I need to know. Since the lawsuit is filed by Citizens for Good Government and it versus the City of Shreveport and all of us in the same barrel together, my question would be since they are trying to protect the City’s interest as to the money deal, would it be legal if in fact, they would pay our attorneys since they are protecting Shreveport’s interest and the finance? Would that be illegal for them since they have it classed as Shreveport’s Citizens for Good Government, would it be illegal for them to pay our attorneys?

Mr. Antee: It wouldn’t be illegal. There’s nothing in the law that provides that they would have to pay our attorney fees. The remedy we have for that is asking for the court to award sanctions, because the suit was without factual merit. Being an attorney, that’s very rare that sanctions are issued. But that doesn’t mean we won’t seek them. Especially in a case as clear as this. And when all it took was getting online in about three minutes and pulling up the Act and seeing the amendments that specifically include the hotel, but yet not including any of that in the lawsuit.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Antee, I know that you had handed out the Convention Center Hotel Trust Authority, the responses. We’ve gone over item 1, copies of the lawsuits pending, the update on the status of the lawsuits. That’s the letter from Laura Poche. The explanation of the issues, whether the bonds to finance the hotel are taxable or nontaxable and you had nontaxable written underneath there. And then the explanation, item 4, Explanation of any City taxes, i.e. sales, hotel, and any other related taxes that will be applied to the finances of the hotel. Underneath that, it says non-dedicated sales (City’s portion; State hot tax rebate - .75% Convention Center and Independence Stadium. All of these are only generated by this hotel only). Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. Antee: Yeah, what we’re talking about is the City’s 2.75% non-dedicated sales tax, does not include the .25 for Fire and Police, that is generated inside the four walls of that hotel. And it’s earmarked. It was earmarked by this Council in the last, in the vote that I forget which one of the many votes it was, but it was earmarked by that. But the City’s portion of the hotel occupancy tax which the State rebates on an annual basis, that’s generated by the hotel, by this hotel only. Not all the other hotels, just this one. And then the .75 which is Shreveport’s portion of the increased sales tax that goes into the Convention Center/Independence Stadium Fund. That was the increase in occupancy tax that was adopted I think in 2000, yeah I think it was the 2000 legislature.

Councilman Carmody: So, Item 3 is the explanation that the hotel itself is not going to be a taxed entity as far as property tax, correct?

Mr. Antee: No, that wasn’t the question.

Councilman Carmody: I know, but I’m trying to get back down to the question.

Mr. Antee: Okay.

Councilman Carmody: Item 3 says the explanation of the issues as to whether the bonds of the hotel are taxable or not, it’s non-taxable is what it says.

Mr. Antee: Right. Those are the bonds that are non-taxable bonds.

Councilman Carmody: Item 4. The hotel itself will not pay property taxes, correct?

Mr. Antee: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: It will collect taxes though on the rooms, and if those portions that you just mentioned to us are non-dedicated City’s portion, 2.75% which you said the State automatically rebates back will be contributed toward the financing of the construction. Plus the .75% Convention Center/Independence Stadium, that will also be contributed back to the financing, is that correct?

Mr. Antee: Yeah. The actual mechanics of it will be just like every other hotel in Shreveport- - - well, in Caddo Parish. When they come, they check out and they pay, they’re going to collect the sales tax, State and Local, they’re going to collect all the taxes. At the end of the month, they’re going to send those taxes to the Caddo Sales and Use Tax Commission. Then they will disburse those taxes back to those various entities. The Parish, the City, School Board with a breakdown of who has what. That money will come into the General Fund. On an annual basis or bi-annually, or however, we want to set it up, then it’d be a paper transfer or it’d be a transfer from those monies that come in, into the Debt Service Fund to pay those debts out. So, they wouldn’t actually take that money, divvy it up and send it back to the hotel. It’d come in and it’d go to the Debt Service Fund to pay the debt.

Councilman Carmody: So, the taxes collected will then be in turn provided to the Revenue Division who would disburse to the other governmental entities that will receive those taxes, Caddo Parish and the School Board, and then the Revenue Division would actually apply the money to the Debt Service?

Mr. Antee: Right, and then whatever periodic basis is set up for.

Councilman Walford: In the letter from Laura Poche to Mr. Pesnell, there was a suspense date of 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 22nd. Has that been extended, or do we intend to stand by that?

Mr. Antee: Mr. Pesnell has responded. I have not seen a copy of the letter, although, I was told about it asking for more specific information. Ms. Poche is in the process of getting that information put together and providing it to him. And so, although, I don’t know that there’s been a formal extension, as long as they are working together as far as transferring information, it will be extended.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Antee, it’s my understanding and you correct me if I’m wrong, that the Caddo Parish Tax Assessor, Charlie Hennington has not made up his mind. He has not rendered a decision yet about the property taxes. Is that still open? I mean, could they still come back and say, you are required to pay property taxes? Is that right?

Mr. Antee: Oh he could. His attorneys are currently looking at it right now. Now, the information that was provided to him was that it was a private entity that would own or the actual hotel facility, and if that were the case, then we don’t dispute that the improvements of the actual hotel would be taxable. But that’s not the case here. I mean, I think I’m sure another lawsuit will come, but we’ve got the law that clearly states and shows what the intent of what’s taxable, what’s not taxable and if it’s for a public purpose, then it’s not taxable. When it’s owned by the public entity, and that’s what we have here.

Councilman Hogan: Is his argument that they’re going to pay Parish taxes? Or what was the deal on the Parish taxes in the original letter?

Mr. Antee: He doesn’t have an argument on it either way. If in fact what they say is true, and this hotel owned by the City for the City is taxable, then it’s going to open up a whole other can of worms. There are a lot of facilities owned by the School Board, there are non-profit hospitals that would all fall into this web. And I don’t think that’s what the constitution provides and I don’t think that’s what the legislative intent is.

Councilman Hogan: Well, the Independence Stadium, it’s not taxed is it?

Mr. Antee: No.

Councilman Hogan: That’s all thank you.

Mayor Hightower: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a couple of comments. 1) being and I’m sure Council Members are aware, because you follow the process closely. But some members of the general public may not be aware that last Thursday, our case again came before the State Bond Commission. I want to publicly thank Councilmen Walford and Jackson for attending the meeting in Baton Rouge, where we were once again forced to go at least in a limited way, present our case to the Bond Commission. The results again were exactly the same as they were the month prior to that. An 11-2 decision of the Bond Commission to uphold their 11-2 vote of the previous month. So we’ve cleared that hurdle but I think that’s it’s a shame - - - that Councilman Green asked a minute ago, how much money we’re having to spend on lawsuits, hurdles, and last minutes attempts and what ifs to get this hotel built, that I think even the opponents that sit on the City Council have acknowledged that we need. We had to go to Baton Rouge again last week to fight some of our own. You know we hear all of the time about Shreveport doesn’t get it’s fair share. North Louisiana doesn’t get its fair share out of Baton Rouge. For once, we’ve got a $12,000,000 commitment. The biggest single capital outlay commitment from the State Government that the City has ever received and we’re having to go down and fight our own. Max Malone led a charge last week to try to essentially take $12,000,000 out of our coffers to build this hotel. Where would that money have gone? I don’t know, Baton Rouge, Alexandria, New Orleans, somewhere. We’ve had hurdle after hurdle and lawsuit after lawsuit to get this job done for the City. And we’ve won, we’ve cleared, we’ve overcome every obstacle that’s been thrown in front of us. And I can promise you that anytime Senator Malone or Representative Powel or anybody else go to Baton Rouge to fight their own constituents, to fight their own City, I’m going to be down there with those of you that will go with me to fight to keep it. And I appreciate the fact that we’ve stood our ground, you’ve stood your ground. Mr. Antee and other citizens in this city have stood their ground to be sure that when it’s all said and done, we build this necessity to help take care and insure future growth and prosperity in the tourism and convention industry that this City so desperately needs and the State so desperately needs. My wish and my hope is that we all come together in Shreveport in Northwest Louisiana for common cause, for common good and stop fighting each other. As long as we continue to fight each other, the New Orleans delegation and the Baton Rouge delegations and delegations from throughout the State are going to continue to be able to hold up and wave that flag that says if your own delegation is not united, then go somewhere else to get your money. Fortunately, we’ve got people in our delegation that do believe that what we’re doing is the right thing and they stood up and they said so. Unfortunately, we’ve got a couple that have continued to fight at every single turn, 11th hour wishes, missing of meetings and then calling of second meeting that again, Councilman Green, continue to cost us money. Continues to cause delays and continues to prohibit and inhibit this City from the growth that we all expect that the Convention and Tourism industry are going to bring to us. Time will tell. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: I do have a couple of questions to ask of you which originally, and I think Council got a response from your CAO, but now I’ve asked for you to answer these questions because the CAO was unable to regarding the Hotel Trust. You have a copy of what I provided you. When was the last time an audit took place on the Hotel Trust?

Mayor Hightower: Has there been one? I don’t think there has been one. But Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that audits internally come from the City Council.

Councilman Gibson: I understand that.

Mayor Hightower: Which is in your jurisdiction.

Councilman Hogan: But the Hotel Trust is outside of our jurisdiction.

Mayor Hightower: That’s not true.

Councilman Gibson: It’s not true?

Mayor Hightower: No.

Councilman Gibson: But in your by-laws, its says that annual audits will take place. Is that correct?

Mayor Hightower: It may say that, I don’t know.

Mr. Antee: It’s been no receipt of revenues or expenses of revenues at this time by the Hotel Trust Authority.

Councilman Gibson: But you sign contracts, right?

Mr. Antee: You can sign contracts without writing a check.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, but I’m just asking questions here. You have signed contracts?

Mayor Hightower: That’s correct.

Councilman Gibson: The questions was asked by Councilman Hogan last week regarding the competitive bid of the construction. I think you’ve been clear on the construction. Regarding the service contracts regarding the hotel. And you said that, that was something that was not gonna be competitively bid. Is that correct?

Mr. Antee: No, that’s not correct.

Councilman Gibson: So, how is that process gonna take place to insure the citizens that are getting in competitive bids there, is that going to be put out to RFP with Tom Mattox’s office?

Mr. Antee: It depends. Some will, some won’t.

Councilman Gibson: It depends?

Mr. Antee: But any - - - that’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: But wait, I’m sorry, I missed - - -

Councilman Gibson: I missed that. I’d like the Administration to respond.

Mr. Antee: I just responded. Some will be, some won’t. Just like in everyday process of the City. There are something that aren’t put out for RFP for several reasons. 1) they’re don’t exceed the amount for which an RFP is required. Second, may be provided for under the State contract to where its not required. The operations of the services and the contracts for the Hotel will mirror those of the Convention Center.

Councilman Gibson: Well, again Mr. Antee, again, I asked for some specifics on January 11, and I got a one sentence response with about a five inch thick piece of document. I believe some of my colleagues got that same response. And again, I’m not an attorney, don’t claim to be and when I have concerns on what’s going on, I asked and I put in writing to what was going on. For example; who will approve change orders regarding construction?

Mr. Antee: The final authority will rest with the Mayor.

Councilman Gibson: The Mayor as Chairman of the Trust, or the Mayor as the Mayor of Shreveport.

Mr. Antee: The Mayor as the Mayor of the City of Shreveport. It will go just like every other change order with any project within the City of Shreveport. There is a pre-approval process, then a formal approval process.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, then I guess that leads me into my question. And my first question I had in the memo that I had sent. What is the role that the Trust plays if the Mayor is going to be handling change orders, the City of Shreveport personnel are going to be handling procurement processes, and I guess our Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee will be handling those professional services, what is the role of the Trust? It seems like it’s our money and I think, later on, on item 14 in this Council, we’re going to be approving $40,000,000 for a public facility owned by the City of Shreveport, but yet, we still have and again, I’m sorry if maybe my recollection is not as clear, but I do remember years ago, that we were seeking both public and private dollars and if the Hotel Trust was going to be a holding company for those funds, and now that it’s completely owned by the City, and I guess, if there wasn’t going to be a public vote on this, of which this Council has been clear on where it’s going with that, then why wouldn’t we want to have complete control as a Council and as an Administration without a third party called the Hotel Trust? And that’s why I sent this note. It’s not to be belligerent, it’s not to be - - - I’m asking some basic questions because when I’m asked these questions, I don ‘t have an answer.

Mr. Antee: Well, I’m sorry that you either don’t review what’s sent to you, or you don’t acknowledge - - -.

Councilman Gibson: No, I reviewed it, that’s why I said I was confused and I asked (inaudible)

Mr. Antee: Councilman Gibson, we’ve answered that question to you on many times. You obviously go out and say that you don’t - - - either you don’t like my answers, or I’m lying to you. That’s why I provided you with all the documentation so that you could read ‘em or you could have your lawyers read ‘em, or you could have your whoever review ‘em. That included the answers to those questions that we’ve answered on many occasions. There’s obviously a difference between construction - - -.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Antee, you’ve answered the question regarding indemnification in terms of people that serve on the Trust? You’ve answered that question?

Mr. Antee: Many times. In fact - - -

Councilman Gibson: When?

Mr. Antee: The last Hotel Trust Authority Meeting, that you went to, which was a couple of meetings ago, because I don’t think you made the last two.

Councilman Gibson: No, I wasn’t invited to the last two. But do we have directors and officers insurance?

Mr. Antee: No.

Councilman Gibson: And then last of all, Trust Authority accountability as it relates to funds received or expended, where does that responsibility fall?

Mr. Antee: Trust Authority responsibility?

Councilman Gibson: In terms of Trust Authority accountability, as it relates to funds received and expended, who has the ultimate responsibility of those funds? Is it the Mayor, is it the City Council? Is it the Trust? Is it all of the above?

Mr. Antee: The Trust.

Councilman Gibson: The Trust?

Mr. Antee: Which is subject to audit - - -

Councilman Gibson: Of which none has taken place yet.

Mr. Antee: Which has been no receipt of money. I realize you have a hard time understanding the concept of an audit and monies being received and going out.

Councilman Gibson: Again, I’m just trying to say - - - if contracts are auditable right? To make sure that they were done properly, correct?

Mr. Antee: Well, if that’s your interpretation of an audit is to review the contract, then they have been audited by - - - not by auditors, but by legal staff.

Councilman Gibson: Well, all I know is looking at some information that we have approved as a City, monies that have flowed through the Trust. Seed money and others. Is that not correct?

Mr. Antee: That’s not correct.

Councilman Gibson: That’s not correct.

Mr. Antee: I don’t think at this time any money, Tom correct me if I’m wrong, but at this time, I don’t think the money has flowed through the Trust. It’s been straight from the City to whatever sources, which - - -

Mr. Dark: Its flowed through the Capital Projects which includes part of the $12,000,000 of what we’ve actually got a cooperative agreement for.

Councilman Gibson: Well again gentlemen, I’m just trying to be clear in my mind on what we’re dealing with here. And again, I asked the Mayor to respond because getting a stack of five inch thick worth of paper, I couldn’t still get an answer to my question. That’s why I turned around and routed my letter to the Mayor and to the City Attorney to answer these questions because there seems to be some clear cut answers on some of these questions, but some of them are still like “well, Tom are we or are we not”?

Mr. Antee: No, I was sure on it, but I wanted to make sure

Councilman Gibson: Well, okay.

Mr. Antee: Double sure.

Councilman Gibson: And so, you know the predicament that I’m in. That’s why I write - - -.

Mr. Antee: No, thank goodness I don’t.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I’m sure you don’t, because I’m the guy that has to cast a vote up here. The last question I have, and you triggered a thought in the Houston Hyatt scenario. We have hotel/motel tax that is dedicated to retire the $42,000,000 in principal and interest on the Independence Stadium Project. Is that correct?

Mr. Antee: There’s $30,000,000 in bonds that the increase, - - - let me back up. Let me explain how it actually works. Back in 2000, I believe it was in 2000, we went to the legislature and got the legislature to increase our hotel/motel tax in this region by 1 ½%. The City of Shreveport gets .75, the City of Bossier gets .75. That money is put into the Shreveport Convention Center/Independence Stadium Fund. Now, the City of Shreveport went out and borrowed the money through the LCDA.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman I’d like to call a Point of Order.

Councilman Gibson: Your point of order is?

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think that with regards to- - -, I think we’re talking about the Independence Stadium at this time. And with all due respect, I think that’s probably a conversation you and the Mayor and the Administration could probably have together. We’re supposed to be on the Convention Center Hotel, or the Convention Center itself as it relates to this report. And with all due respect, I’d like for us to remain germane.

Councilman Gibson: Okay. Councilman Jackson, the reason why I asked the question is because part of the financing of the hotel involves hotel/motel tax - - -

Councilman Green: Mr. Chairman, you got to rule on the Point of Order.

Councilman Jackson: But Mr. Chairman it does not involve Independence Stadium.

Councilman Gibson: We’ll go to a Point of Order. You want to challenge the Chair? I do not consent to the out of order call. So, if you want to - - -

Councilman Jackson: It’s not an out of order, its just a Point of Order with regards to what we’re on.

Councilman Gibson: That’s fine, but I’m suggesting that the Chair said it’s germane to the issue..

Councilman Jackson: Yes sir, I’d like to challenge the Chairman and ask for a vote Mr. Chairman

Councilman Gibson: Okay. Got a challenge from Councilman Jackson, do I have a second?

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to overturn the ruling of the Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, very quickly. I think that Mr. Antee was trying to make a point and he was going back to make his point by explaining to us how the financing worked in that scenario.

Councilman Jackson: With all due respect Mr. Chairman - - -

Councilman Gibson: Again, no more discussion.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, you just recognized Councilman Carmody on a discussion.

Councilman Gibson: Right, and I think I still have the floor. Mr. Carmody, go ahead.

Councilman Carmody: Well, my point being is that I’d almost rather give Mr. Antee the latitude to answer the question as he needs to answer and so hopefully, it will enlighten the Council as to the whole mechanism works. Thank you sir.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect and I can appreciate that, but I think that’s probably something you all can probably still do on time that’s specific to that and even on the part of the agenda where we can accommodate that. Its not out of order with regard to the meeting, but at this point, we’re out of order with regards to our discussion. That’s my point. Not that we can’t talk about it at another time. This is just in my opinion, again, we’ll vote on it, not the appropriate time.

Councilman Walford: At a Point of Order, there should be no other discussion. Only Councilman Jackson should be recognized for discussion on his appeal.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman.

Councilman Walford: That’s in accordance with Council Rules of Procedure 4.8.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman, thank you. Mr. Thompson, because of this being very unusual, give us direction again on the vote.

Mr. Thompson: I think the motion is to overturn the ruling of the chair.

Councilman Gibson: Right. And a “Yes” vote is?

Mr. Thompson: To overturn the ruling of the Chair

Councilman Gibson: And a “No” vote is not to.

Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Gibson, and Hogan. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Green, and Jackson. 3.

Mr. Antee: the money comes in, is dedicated to that account and then as the debt payments on the Stadium become due, then its paid through the Debt Service Fund and that money basically is earmarked for it. Nowhere in the actual loan documents for Independence Stadium is there a pledge on that specific revenue. It’s basically an accounting process where the money comes in. So much comes in and the money is being paid. But it’s not pledged so that, that .7 money coming into that account and keep in mind it goes into the Convention Center/Independence Stadium Fund which is the same money that the State rebate portion of the State sales tax on hotel/motel rooms in Shreveport go to. So all that money goes into that fund and that fund is there for the Convention Center Complex as well as the Independence Stadium. And so that’s how the mechanism actually works for it. So, the .75% on the hotel rooms in the Hilton Hotel could be used and earmarked to help pay the debt on it without violating any of the loan documents on any other loan with the City including Independence Stadium.

Councilman Gibson: So Mr. Antee, you’re saying that what’s taking place, that revenue stream is still - - - we will not be endangering the commitments on Independence Stadium?

Mr. Antee: Absolutely not. And the only portion of the tax is the tax generated within the four corners of the Hilton Hotel, not the .75 for the Courtyard Marriot, the Residence Inn or any of these other hotels.

Councilman Gibson: Now, I understand that. But if that revenue were to drop in terms of hotel/motel revenue, then we may have some problems over at Independence Stadium, hypothetically? I’m saying if the other hotels in town, outside of the Convention Center Hotel, have some hiccups, whether it be for whatever reason, that Independence Stadium could be in jeopardy?

Mr. Antee: No, because it’s pledged by the full faith and credit of the City.

Councilman Gibson: Okay. Alright.

Mr. Antee: It’s no difference, than at your job, you get a paycheck. Then say you go get a rental house and the revenues that you have come in from that rental house, you decide to go build a swimming pool at your house and you say ‘well, I’m gonna use the money that comes, this extra money coming in from me renting out this piece of property to pay off the note on my swimming pool’. And it comes into your checking account and you write the check to pay the note on your swimming pool. It’s no different than that. It’s not like when you go and you take that money, you go and borrow money against the rental house, and you pledge the revenues of that house to pay that debt back and that mortgage company holds the pledge of those revenues so those revenues can only be used to go to that debt.

Councilman Gibson: So, our good faith and credit is backing whatever shortfall that may or may not come with revenues out of hotel/motel tax?

Mr. Antee: That is correct.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, that was something that I was not aware of and I appreciate you clearing that up. Thank you Mr. Antee, thank you Mayor Hightower, and thank you gentlemen.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, since we’re on the subject and I think our Chairman brought up the fact more than once about an audit, I wanted to just clarify and so that people will know for certain that the requirements within the language of the Hotel Trust Authority require for a financial audit and not the kind of audit that we routinely do from the Audit and Finance Committee’s perspective. That financial audit then audits those things that in fact have come in. Receipts and those kinds of things which we don’t have, which would not have required us to have done any at this time.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Jackson.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ms. Glover is here instead of Mr. Bowie today.

Councilman Walford: But she’s sending Ms. Moore.

Councilman Lester: That’s fine. Either way, it’s an improvement. Don’t tell ‘em I said that. He’s a friend, he’s a friend. He knows what I’m talking about. Good afternoon Ms. Moore.

Ms. Moore: Good Evening.

Councilman Lester: I just wanted to go through a couple of things Council, if we could. Really, really briefly, you know we all listen and we read our local daily and a number of other publications that are out there within the City. Some of whom, I won’t dignify by calling their names but one local publication in particular made what I thought to be some very serious and irrespective and baseless charges. And one of those baseless charges was that there is some kind of cover up or no action going on in the Department of Code Enforcement. And I took umbrage to that comment. I think it’s instructive that whoever wrote this letter to the editor of this publication, did not sign it, or if they signed it, their name was withheld for one reason or another. But I just wanted to go through a litany of things and Ms. Moore is here from the Department of Community Development to represent that organization. Just very briefly, we created the Property Standards Committee in 2003. One of the problems they had in Property Standards was they were using microfilm and microfiche. And as I appreciate it, some of those film were 10-15 years old and they were barely legible. And they were having to deal with updated information and they were sending notices out to people who had not owned the property, were not tax/sale properties for 10 and 15 years and so, nothing was getting done. One of the first things that happened as a Property Standards Committee, we put together Data Processing with Code Enforcement and we updated them. They’re not using microfilm anymore, they’re using computers as I appreciate it. That is correct Ms. Moore?

Ms. Moore: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: And in fact, this Council appropriated some money to get laptops for the people in Code Enforcement and we’ve done a number of hours of training, the best that we could afford to equip our folks in Code Enforcement. As a matter of fact, we also have talked with the City of Shreveport’s GIS Coordinator and we’re working on a project that’s going to put real time information on the computer, so that when our Code Enforcement people can find out what’s going on. Another issue that has happened with Code Enforcement is enforcement. I mean it’s easy for us to jump up and down on Code Enforcement, because you know they’re in a department that Community Development and a lot of people don’t care about. But one issue they were having was, when the Code Enforcement people come out and write citations, what happens? They’re stacking up. Well, what do we do? We worked with the City Court Judges and now we have a scenario where we have several days in City Court, I think under the leadership of a number of people on this Council, primarily through the some of the efforts of Councilman Hogan to force some Code Enforcement issues to the table with the Judges in Shreveport City Court and now, the City Court understands that this Council means business as it relates to Code Enforcement violations. And several of the Councilmen have taken a strong position in terms of making sure that things get done once the people in Code Enforcement have done their job. Now, I also wanted to point out several pieces of legislation that have come out from this Code Enforcement Committee or the Property Standards Committee. Because apparently whoever is writing these articles is misinformed. We have Ordinance No. 34 of 2003, authored by myself and Councilman Walford, that changed the charges with Code Enforcement. At one point you were only having to pay $50. Now, it’s a more realistic fine and people are complaining which means that they are coming into compliance. Then we have Resolution 20 of 2004 that was sponsored by myself, Councilman Walford, Councilman Carmody, Councilman Gibson, that dealt with the burned out structures in our community. And asking the CEO to come up with a plan that we have to deal with what happens when these places burn down and they are just left alone. Then we have Ordinance No. 79 of 2004, that deals with relative to nuisances and blight elimination. That’s another ordinance that is now law that came out of Property Standards Committee. Then you have Ordinance No. 84 of 2004 that deals with sanitation requirements and care of premises violations. And then finally, you have Ordinance No. 130 of 2004 offered by myself and passed by this Council that deals with disposal of adjudicated property for people who owns pieces of property that have been maintaining them for a year that allows them to give them the benefit, if they are going to take care of the property that other people haven’t been taking care of, so that they can buy those properties at a reduced value and get them back into the stream of commerce. Is it where it should be? No it’s not. But this Council and Code Enforcement is working very hard, very diligently to do the job. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve given them the technology. We’ve finally given them the equipment and we’re finally giving them some support from not only from the Council, but from the other branches of government. From the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch, so that we can actually get something done. So, I don’t know what it is out there or whatever neighborhood it is. Maybe they had an ax to grind with the people from Code Enforcement, but I can say this - - - those men and women in Code Enforcement are working their tails off. They’ve finally gotten some equipment. They have a Council that’s backing them up. They have City Court that’s backing them up and we’re making some changes out there. So, I don’t know who it was that wrote the letter. I could call their name, but they weren’t even man enough or woman enough to sign it. But just the idea that you can write a letter and impugn the entire integrity of men and women who are working hard everyday to do the - - - I mean Code Enforcement in City Government is one of the most important jobs, and it is the most thankless jobs, because no one is ever satisfied. But we have people that are working their tails off to get the job done and I’m personally offended that someone would write a letter saying that there is some secret committee and the committee isn’t meeting and the committee isn’t doing anything. Because this committee has put out more legislation than any other committee on the City Council combined. And that’s just not me, those are the facts. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you if you would convey something to Ms. Glover, but I see her hiding back there. I’ve got to tell you, she has been fantastic lately. I have been inundated with complaints. And she has been so good about keeping me up on the status of them. I know now whose no-showed in court. I know whose got warrants out. I don’t know what we can do about that, but I do want to praise her, because she has really been good and very responsive. Now, I want to go to Mr. Lester and you can stand up there and enjoy this or your can sit down. But this is going to be a praise for your too. But Mr. Lester has led the Property Standards Committee. I don’t think you can go back on any previous Council and find a committee that has brought as many people together to solve a problem. I don’t think it’s happened. We’ve had and I’m going to omit somebody, your department. We’ve had Legal. We’ve had Data Processing. We’ve had finance. We’ve even had the City Judges come over and meet with us and we’ve been over to meet with them. Come on Ms. Moore, help me. Who am I forgetting? I know there’s been some more. We’ve had the CAO. Everybody coming together to work to better Code Enforcement and kudos to Mr. Lester as our leader. You just heard him say what the legislation was so, no, it’s not perfect. And you’ve got an overwhelming job, but I think we put a big dent in it, and I think we’ve done it working together. And I think we’ve got something to be proud of. So, let somebody throw stones Mr. Lester. I feel good about what we’ve done. I’ve enjoyed serving on that committee. We’ve got a ways to go, but I think we’re going to get there.

Ms. Moore: And I just want to add that we do have a remarkable staff. Quite often, they don’t get the accolades that they need. They get negative connotations and negative (inaudible) but we do have a real good staff including Ms. Glover, and others on that. And I do want to give thanks to Data Processing, Finance and Legal who spent a tremendous amount of time in helping us and supporting us in this effort. It’s not just Code Enforcement. They have spent time that they didn’t have to spend. Sometimes after hours working and helping us to devise a measure to help us do a better job. We’re always in a continuous improvement mode. There is a lot to be done in this community. We can’t do it by ourselves and I do want to acknowledge the support of the Council and the Administration.

Councilman Carmody: Ms. Moore, I know that you had received a request and compiled a list of property standard violations 15 chronic violators. And it looks like in total, the outstanding monies owed are $189,172.26. Can you apprise the Council of what steps are being taken to pursue this money?

Ms. Moore: Because we didn’t initially pursue the criminal citations, we’ll have to go through the Civil Administrative Process. So we’re going to have to get all the files to Legal, so that Legal can pursue them legally. And we’re trying to develop a mechanism to do that right now. But we will keep you abreast.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to commend you all for such a great job. And also, Councilman Walford, there was another committee who did more legislation than what Councilman Lester is doing. During the time when I served with the Mayor some years ago, we had a committee that was- - - we were trying to band the shooting of firecrackers and we had a lot of people that we brought together.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, may I apologize if I slighted my colleague?

Councilman Gibson: He (inaudible). He’s got more of a firecracker jacket today, so he’s right on course.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lafitte, could I get you to come forward for just a moment? How you doing?

Mr. Lafitte: Good afternoon.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you. In all of this discussion we had just now, it’s brought to my mind the fact that, you know when we did the budget?

Mr. Lafitte: Right.

Councilman Hogan: We got approved a new City Prosecutor. And could you tell me where we stand on that? I was in the Prosecutor’s office with the court case with a Property Standards Violation last week. And I just mentioned that to her. And she was busy, all she was able to tell me was that no one had been hired for that. Where do we stand on that?

Mr. Lafitte: In fact I interviewed a young lady just last Thursday, she had just completed taking the Bar Exam on last week. She’s a good prospect and we’re waiting for her Bar results and if in fact, she does pass the Bar Exam, I think I am going to hire her.

Councilman Hogan: I assume you did and advertisement?

Mr. Lafitte: We don’t advertise for those.

Councilman Hogan: You don’t advertise for that?

Mr. Lafitte: I contact people and I also contact the Law Schools in the State and see if they know of any recent graduates and I contact those individuals that are recommended by the Law Schools.

Councilman Hogan: How many people have you interviewed so far?

Mr. Lafitte: I’ve interviewed three people actually.

Councilman Hogan: And you have some more to interview?

Mr. Lafitte: No, I don’t have any others that I plan on interviewing. I don’t have any other names. If you know of someone, I’d be more than happy to interview ‘em.

Councilman Hogan: No sir, I don’t. That’s all I need. Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Lafitte, very quickly sir. I know that this was a discussion that’s had many times over, but I just want to go through it probably one more time. The water and sewer utility is owned by the City of Shreveport, correct?

Mr. Lafitte: Yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: I would ask your office if they could render an opinion back to the Council as to whether or not and if the municipality owns the water meters, that if there were persons found to be in violation of Property Standards, and I guess chronically, would the municipality have the authority to pull our municipal property from the service of their principal residence?

Mr. Lafitte: Okay.

Councilman Carmody: And I know that Mr. Lester said, that I wouldn’t have the nerve to bring this up in a Council Meeting, but I’ll go ahead have the nerve today. But I would really appreciate it, because again I think that you don’t miss your water until your well runs dry. And that’s the way I kinda appreciate it. And although I understand people have economics and doing business and things that they’ve got to be responsible for. If you look at almost $200,000 worth of delinquent fines, and you could go to the principal resident and pull their water meter, I got a feeling you’d get some pretty quick response. Thank you sir.

Councilman Lester: And just for clarification purposes, my challenge was before we go after the small violators, the Ms. Johnsons, and the senior citizens, let’s hit the big time 15. If we deal with the big time 15, then yeah, I’ll even co-sponsor the legislation. But I certainly wouldn’t want us to- - - because many times we come up with these great enforcement tools and it winds up being enforced against the small folk, (inaudible) the dirty dozen plus three, then lets see what we can do.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lafitte: While you’re there, I’d be interested in looking at all sides. Because I think the Councilmen are correct. We ought to try to do everything we can. But certainly every attempt ought to be circumscribed within the bounds of the law. And I guess my question is whether or not our property represents and entitlement or whether or not, our property is something that, that individual is paying for at that particular residence. When we start talking about their principal residence, that meter is there at their principal residence because they are paying for water there. It is possible to be current on a water bill and have problems other places. So, I think that becomes a question of whether or not, our property is an entitlement to them or whether or not they are paying for a service and whether or not they are delinquent on that particular service. I think that’s a good idea, I just think it may be ambitious and I want us to be sure that we circumscribe our efforts within the boundaries of the law. So, would just ask that you consider that as well.

Mr. Lafitte: Certainly.

Councilman Gibson: The Chair would like to commend that committee. There is one oversight. I think that one of the first things that this Council did and yes, we’ve been accused of not working together, although in looking in retrospect on legislation, I see one person that I’m looking at in the audience that says we don’t work together. But about 95% plus of every legislative act that comes before this Body is approved 7-0.

Councilman Lester: That’s correct.

Councilman Gibson: And one particular piece of legislation that was passed and one of the most important things based on the pressures that were put on by this Council was asking for a more focused, more professional heading up Community Development. And unfortunately, we lost and individual through resignation because of those pressures. But I do recall when we first step on as Council, everyone of us had pledged in our campaigns to get serious about Code Enforcement and we all had conversations amongst each other and we all worked together and asked the Administration to tow the line, of which I commend Mayor Hightower for heeding the recommendation from this Body. And it produced a professional in Bonnie Moore to which is towing the line for this City. But sometimes that gets lost in the shuffle in what we do. And I do believe that every piece of legislation that you cited Councilman Lester was voted on 7-0 also.

Councilman Lester: Correct.

Councilman Gibson: So, when those stones are thrown at us, I think it’s always, and I (underline) us that there is not many times that we don’t vote 7-0. Because again, out of respect for things that happen and in our respective districts and on top of that, we also recognize when we first got into Council that we inherited quite a few of unfinished businesses from previous City Council of which we’ve had to take some serious look at. So again, just for the record, Councilman Lester, I do appreciate you bringing that up.

Councilman Green: Yes, you said that there was a person in the audience that said we don’t work together. And I was looking for Lou Burnette, but I don’t see him.

Councilman Gibson: Well, he may be one of them, but I don’t’ see hem in the audience.

Councilman Green: Oh, I thought you were talking about him, I didn’t know. I thought he was here.

Councilman Gibson: Well you know he says you’re the best advertisement for his product Councilman Green.

Councilman Green: Well, I’m going to help hem advertise some more. Don’t accept his paper at your establishment.

Councilman Gibson: One other comment, Ms. Moore. If you could have Mr. Bowie call me in the morning. I have two structures on 70th Street between Line Ave and I-49 that I believe probably y’all have a significant file on. And I will touch base with him on that. Because it is expected at least in conversations I’ve had with Representative Ernest Baylor that in the not too distance future, we’re expected to see a complete overlay in the expansion of 70th Street between Line Ave and I-49, which will help bring that community and bring some of the businesses up and down to compliment my colleague, Councilman Lester. He’s doing an admirable job up in the northern part of the City. But there are two structures that probably are going to curtail that revitalization from occurring and I would like to visit with Mr. Bowie in the morning.

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments, Adding Legislation to the Agenda, and Public Comments.

Confirmations and/or Appointments.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

1. Ordinance No. 24 of 2005: An ordinance authorizing the donation of City-owned property in the Lakeside Subdivision to Urban Housing of America, Louisiana INC., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 34 of 2005: A resolution stating the City of Shreveport’s endorsement of Mid-City Plaza, L.L.C to participate in then benefits of the Louisiana Restoration Tax Abatement Program.

3. Resolution No. 35 of 2005: A resolution amending the City Council Rules of Procedure relative to rules of debate and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green, to add Ordinance No 24 of 2005, and Resolution No(s) 34 and 35 of 2005.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I had to step out of the Chambers for a moment. What is No. 1?

Councilman Jackson: That’s it right there.

Councilman Lester: On the hyperlink.

Councilman Hogan: Okay. About the property? I’m fine, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. John Hubbard: (430 Town South Drive) I, in conversations with a number of Councilmen and there are those that I was unable to get in touch with, I felt like I need to further clarify some points and add some points that might be germane to the vote you’ll take. As I last stated to you of our request is to vote to get this out of committee and onto the Senate floor for discussion. That’s all the other parts of the resolution. It boils down to lets have a discussion on Clear Skies. It has been stated that the City may not have a dog in this fight per say it’s really a federal issue. I remind the Council about the Flexible Attainment Plan that went into affect and the agreement that had to be put into place because of some ozone issues. I remind the Council, and I ‘m sure you’re aware that Baton Rouge is in a non-attainment area. And they have vehicle inspections where they have to test emissions and a car can’t be passed. And they have to go in and there’s just an immense amount of things and they’ve got reformulation of their gasoline that has to be used in that area. So there are just - - - there are issues that are germane to the public if we don’t do something about the air emissions and start taking some proactive efforts in putting in some scrubbers and putting in some purification systems that start cleaning up the air. And it just seems to me that they’re restating that those of us that vote for y’all have an electric bill. This City is a large customer of ours. The City has an abundance of issues they need to spend dollars on. This Clear Skies legislation is touted as you’ve seen some of the information that’s been shared with you. It’s a cleaner, cheaper, faster approach to getting the issue addressed. And all the way across the board, there’s just so many positives. So, we’re talking about the low income, we’re talking about the high income. Back when we had REMCO as a competitor, before they were purchased, subdivisions were promoting this as served by SWEPCO, because REMCO rates were so high, you couldn’t afford to put homes in those areas, because your electric bills were so high. So, it in some way depresses the growth and what size houses, if you will, that you want to call the quality of life. So, I remind y’all that there are issues in this and (inaudible) of this and I hope you’ll think favorably of this request.

Brian Bond: (343 St. Charles Blvd) Yes sir. Thank you Councilman. We really appreciate the opportunity here today to request that you consider passage of the resolution that will enhance and hopefully provide another opportunity that comes around about every 15 or 20 years for the Federal Government to take a look at what our air quality standards are. And to based on (inaudible) debating in congress to do what they feel is necessary to support the air quality improvements across the nation. We respectfully request that you consider the resolution and appreciate that consideration.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Bond, I’m curious and maybe you can answer this question. Where is this Clear Skies Act currently? Is it in Committee: Is it being discussed in Committee? Is there a feel for whether or not it’s going to make it out of Committee? Or if it’s in jeopardy of being killed in Committee? Could you tell the Council?

Mr. Bond: I probably can. Last Wednesday, it was being marked up, they deferred the vote for two weeks. So, a week from this Wednesday, they were supposed to vote on it in Committee. It’s in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee. Quite honestly, it’s a very contentious issue among the parties that are on that committee. The word that we’re having or we’re hearing is that there is a lot of progress that is being made though. Which is an encouraging sign. So we’re hopeful that the Committee will see fit to vote it out before the full senate floor and to allow that debate to continue. There is certain constituents up there that want to see CO2 legislation amendments onto the Bill and just let the debate take place. But overall, as far as the, without a doubt, this is going to be the largest air emission reduction in the history of the United States. So we believe that, that’s good and it provides certainty for the country as we plan ahead and try to remain competitive in global market place. That’s where it stands.

Councilman Gibson: I do not have and I apologize, we do not have a subject matter on here, so I’m going to go ahead and recognize Dorothy Johnson.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, before Ms. Johnson gets here, could you ask here to apprise us of what she’s here to speak to us, because this might not be the appropriate part of the agenda.

Councilman Gibson: Ms. Johnson, your subject matter. You do not have that on your - - - what is the nature of your business?

Dorothy Johnson: It was a matter of John Taylor was here in one of the last meetings for the purpose of Jerry Tim Brooks Ceremony. And he wanted to be here today, but he said he wasn’t able to come, he was tied up in school in Houston, Texas. And he wanted to know if it’s anything that he must do, or he can do?

Councilman Gibson: I tell you what. Could I ask you to work with Councilman Jackson? I believe, is that Councilman Jackson’s district right? Councilman Jackson is stepped out real quick, but as soon as he comes back- - -.

Councilman Lester: Oh, that’s me.

Ms. Johnson: I’ve called Attorney Lester several times, but I didn’t receive an answer back. And he’s called him and he - - -

Councilman Gibson: Could I ask you to maybe, y’all might have a side bar right quick, and I think Councilman Lester will be able to work with you on that.

Councilman Lester: Sure, sure. And I don’t have a problem with that. I think I have spoken with your- - - is it your - - -

Ms. Johnson: Brother, John.

Councilman Lester: Brother, yes, I’ve spoken with him at length about that.

Ms. Johnson: He wanted you to know that he would be here on the 21st. He wanted to be here today.

Councilman Gibson: If y’all could meet in the back of the Chamber? Thank you.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

RESOLUTIONS ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE OR WHICH REQUIRE ONLY ONE READING

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 13 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR WITH THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER, TRENDS AND TRADITIONS: A SPRING MARKET AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Mike Gibson

WHEREAS, Since 1930, the Junior League of Shreveport-Bossier (The Junior League) has provided services to the community and improved the quality of life in this area; and

WHEREAS, the Junior League is committed to promoting voluntarism, developing the potential of women and improving our community through the effective action and leadership of trained volunteers; and

WHEREAS, the Junior League founded the Red River Revel, and the Rutherford House, partnered with LSUS to develop the Pioneer Heritage Center, sold bricks for the Festival Plaza, and it was and is a major contributor to Sci-Port; and

WHEREAS, currently the Junior League offers community programs at Providence House, Dress for Success at the Highland Center, a summer program at St. Catherine’s Community Center in Cedar Grove, reads to and mentors 1st graders at Atkins Elementary School and works with middle school students in Caddo Bossier Parish to break down social barriers and prejudices at the River Cites Youth Summit. It provides over 250 volunteers at the Red River Revel, and in the past 12 months it provided funding for the MLK Health Center, Northwest La Interfaith Pharmacy, Rutherford House, and Volunteers of America; and

WHEREAS, the Junior League of Shreveport-Bossier funds these endeavors through the Trends and Traditions fund raiser; and

WHEREAS, during the 3 days of Trends and Traditions, over 110 merchants throughout the Southwest will bring more than 6,000 shoppers to Expo Hall on the Shreveport Riverfront, who will spend more than $200,000; and

WHEREAS, the Trends and Tradition sales will generate sales taxes to the City of Shreveport, and the out of town merchants and shoppers will generate additional sales taxes, hotel/motel taxes and Riverboat revenues for the City; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to participate with the Junior League of Shreveport-Bossier in the production of the 2005 Trends and Traditions: A Spring Market by providing the use of the Expo Hall for this event from Thursday, March 3, 2005 through Sunday, March 5, 2005; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to execute an agreement with the Junior League of Shreveport-Bossier, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in which the City provides the use of the Expo Hall (the rental fee only) for the 2005 Trends and Traditions: A Spring Market, and in which the Junior League of Shreveport-Bossier agrees:

1) To provide the economic and cultural benefits described herein to the City, and

2) To provide the insurance and to pay for the other customary services and charges associated with the use of the facility.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby declared severable and repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 15 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NUMBER 235 OF 2004 RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Resolution Number 235 of 2004 authorized the Mayor to execute a retainer agreement with Loyd Thomas, Attorney at Law, to provide loan closing services to the City of Shreveport in connection with the lease-purchase program and pilot mortgage program components of the Neighborhood Recovery Project (“Project”) at a cost not to exceed $350.00 per closing; and

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the agreement to provide for additional matters related the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor be and he is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, an amendment to the retainer agreement with Loyd Thomas to provide for additional matters related to the Neighborhood Recovery Project, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of the draft thereof which was filed for public inspection, together with the original copy of this resolution in the office of the Clerk of Council on February 8, 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

RESOLUTION N0. 16 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SHREVEPORT MULTICULTURAL CENTER, INC, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport and the Shreveport Multicultural Center, Inc., have entered into an agreement wherein the Center is granted authority to lease, manage and operate the Multicultural Center of the South on City-owned premises within downtown Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, it has become apparent that there is a need to clarify how and under what conditions the Center is allowed to sublease portions of the leased premises.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that it hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to Lease, Manage and Operate the Multicultural Center of the South between the City of Shreveport and the Shreveport Multicultural Center, Inc., substantially in accord with the draft thereof filed in the office of the Clerk of Council on February 8, 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision of item of this resolution or the application thereof shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of the resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or provisions thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 17 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE SHREVEPORT CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL AUTHORITY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport “(City”) and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority (“Authority”) have been named as defendants in the matter entitled “Shreveport Citizens for Good Government, Inc., et al v. Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority et al,” Suit Number 528329, Division D, 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana and Suit Number 491232, Division C, 1st Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, City and Authority desire to retain James R. Lewis, with the law firm of Crawford Lewis, to provide legal representation to defend both the City and the Authority in connection with the claims made by the plaintiff with regard to this matter; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommends the employment of such special legal counsel to represent the City and the Authority in this matter pursuant to Section 8.03 of the City Charter.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor be and he is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, a retainer agreement and engagement letter with James R. Lewis, with the law firm of Crawford Lewis, to represent the City of Shreveport and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority in connection with claims made by the plaintiff with regard to the above-referenced matter, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of the drafts thereof which were filed for public inspection, together with the original copy of this resolution in the office of the Clerk of Council on February 8, 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Walford: It just disgust me that we have to do this and that we’re wasting money. I’d like to quantify it by taking what we have to spend and put it in terms of asphalt overlay or various other things. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 18 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE CLEAR SKIES ACT BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has long supported public policy positions which encourage a clean environment consistent with economic growth; and

WHEREAS, the financial integrity of the State’s regulated utilities is essential to maintaining the reliable sources of electricity essential for Shreveport’s continued economic growth; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Clear Skies Act of 2005 will require utilities to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by seventy per cent by 2018, which will benefit the citizens of Shreveport and surrounding areas; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Clear Skies Act of 2005 will establish market-based methods that will allow utilities to meet emissions targets using the most efficient means possible; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that it urges the United States Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to consider and approve the Clear Skies Act and report it to the Senate floor for debate and passage.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt.

Mayor Hightower: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we asked that this be put on the Council agenda a couple of weeks back and although I don’t profess to know all there is to know about the Clear Skies Act. What I do know and what I do understand is something that you heard Mr. Hubbard mention a minute ago. And it’s a direct reflection on what’s going to happen to our electric utility bills. It’s also a direct reflection as to what’s going to happen when we start talking about competitiveness and economic development inducements to bring particularly large electrical users here. This bill will give SWEPCO the ability to continue to mine coal, and lignite to produce electricity at lower prices than most of the country, while at the same time, keeping us, Shreveport, Bossier, Minden, Northwest Louisiana in attainment. Not following the footsteps of Baton Rouge and some other communities around the State and around the Country that are in non-attainment stage, which obviously translates into extra dollars having to be spent to come into compliance. One issue that I don’t believe that Mr. Hubbard mentioned today, was roughly a $5,000,000,000 investment in Northwest Louisiana at AEP. How much of that would come to Northwest Louisiana? $4.6 billion. But it obviously has their company strapped as far as what the laws are going to be as far as them being able to go out and commit that kind of capital improvement to be sure that the air quality is what the air quality ought to be. So, I think Councilman Lester I believe asked for Department of Operational Services to render a letter back to you guys. And Mike did that essentially saying that he didn’t have a recommendation one way or the other. And again, we don’t profess to know everything about Clear Skies, but what we do know that we’ve heard in testimony over the past two week period is that it’ll help keep us in attainment, and that it will keep our electric utility rates at a competitive advantage over the competition. Thus meaning that our citizens won’t have to pay more for electricity than is absolutely necessary.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, I’d offer a substitute motion to remove item 18 from the agenda.

Substitute Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to remove Resolution No. 18 of 2005 from the agenda.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. And certainly, this means no disrespect to SWEPCO or AEP and their position. But I just don’t feel that as the Councilman for District A, I don’t think I have the capacity or the information to deal with a resolution expressing support for a piece of legislation, that as I appreciate it, is 254 pages that is still being flushed out. That has been locked in turmoil in a Senate Committee for at least the last two years. I think many times, in elected positions, we have to make an honest assessment of what our capabilities are, what our abilities are and what our responsibility is. And as I appreciate it, in my opinion, we have two outstanding United States Senators. We have a Congressman., And I just would believe that they would be the proper parties to deal with these particular issues. I don’t think that this Council has the information or the staff required to deal with an issue like this. I think this is something that’s important and I think that this is something that is important to the citizens of Shreveport, but at the end of the day, I think we have a Councilman to deal with local issues, but we have a Congressman to deal with these types of issues. And I just think that it sets a bad precedent for us to put a resolution of support or expressing our dissatisfaction with a piece of legislation that does not originate or does not specifically deal with an issue specifically endemic to the City of Shreveport. When we do that, I think we’re acting outside the course and scope of our purview and I think it sends a dangerous message. And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with AEP, but the reality of it is, our Body is just not equipped to deal with this type of thing. And it’s not that we don’t have the intelligence up here. Certainly I would not say anything bad about my own intelligence. Now, you would have others and several of our local dailies that have, but we’re not here to talk about that. But I just don’t think that we’re properly set up for that and I just think it sets a bad precedent and that’s why I’m asking that this be removed from the agenda. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think I understand. I’ve talked to I think Mr. Lloyd, I’ve talked to Mr. Hubbard, both of them just briefly today. And I missed the presentation, but I was in receipt of the documents that were delivered, particularly those by SWEPCO and also what Mr. Strong did for the City with regards to analyzing what he received from both sides. At first blush, my thought is I guess kinda similar to what Councilman Lester says. We kinda don’t have a dog in this fight. And that it’s happening on another level. However, I think that if we’re going to err, I personally would like to err on the side of a local business who is at least suggesting that this is something that may, might, maybe will get out of this Committee we hope and that ours is an effort not to strengthen that, because I don’t - - - I mean, I think we have a pretty high appraisal of ourselves if we think our resolution is going to strengthen whether or not it comes out of the Senate Committee. But that being the case, I figured better to err on the side of folks- - -. Every, not every meeting, but many meetings we sit here and we approve and I don’t want to challenge any of my colleagues, but we approve State Incentive Programs, to help businesses. We approve Enterprise Zone Applications to help businesses. And I won’t comment on what anybody else may think about what SWEPCO’s corporate community relationship has been with the City of Shreveport, but certainly I think as a business in this area, that I certainly would have to err on the side of - - - they’re not asking us for much is what I think. And I’m saying to not do it doesn’t make much difference as well. I would Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if it’s appropriate, because there is a Substitute Motion, I believe, on the floor, there is only thing that I would see that would bother me or should it bother any of the opponents except they’re wanting to kill it altogether, if you will, but there is two words in this whole resolution and in the very last paragraph, it says ‘Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council, of the City of Shreveport in legal session convened that it urges the United States Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to consider and approve the Clear Skies Act and report it to the Senate floor for debate and passage’. You know I would support striking the term “and approve” and just have “to consider the Clear Skies Act and report it to the Senate floor for debate and passage”, all we’ve asked for is for them to have the conversation of it. Now, if we want to say, we only want them to consider it and we want to send no signs that we want them to consider it for whatever reasons, then I’m open to that argument as well.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, is this in the form of a substitute? To strike that language?

Councilman Jackson: No, I just offer that as something that may be a compromise if there was an interest among the Body. But I’m not officially putting that in the form of a substitute motion Mr. Chairman. Just something that I hope as we go through this brief debate, that we may consider, because I don’t see where we’re going to be either for it or against it. What’s gonna be the major impact when we walk out of this room, for it or against it. And neither side has said a major impact. They said ‘I don’t think we need to do it and don’t have a dog in that fight’, or lets try to get it out on the Senate floor.

Councilman Gibson: Point well taken.

Councilman Walford: I share the same concern. And certainly, I’m a great supporter of SWEPCO, I use you everyday starting with the alarm clock in the morning. And it certainly is not a slight to SWEPCO. I’m not comfortable when we ask for something to come out of Committee for ‘debate and passage’ when we don’t even really know what its going to say. I would be much more comfortable when it’s out of Committee and before the House and Senate supporting it or not supporting it knowing what the final form would be. I’m not real comfortable with a blanket endorsement of something when I don’t really know what it’s going to say. And that’s certainly not intended as a slight to SWEPCO. They’re a great corporate citizen, but that language kinda bothers me. Because we don’t know what it says, but we’re urging it out of Committee for debate and passage. That last line, ‘debate and passage’ bothers me. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: I was just going to call for the vote on this substitute motion. But how do we get - - - in order for us to get to what Councilman Jackson has recommended, he has to have it in writing, so I would get it in writing. If you postpone it, it ain’t going to do any good, because they’re going to vote on it in two weeks.

Councilman Walford: I was going to call on Ms. Glass or Mr. Thompson. Could we get an amendment by - - - before the close of business today, and then suspend our rules Mr. Chairman, to vote on this later in the meeting?

Ms. Glass: We could do that.

Councilman Walford: We’re striking, if I’m not mistaken, we’re striking part of one line.

Councilman Gibson: I understand, thank you. Councilman Green, I apologize, you had the floor.

Councilman Green: Yes sir Mr. Chairman, would you say that one more time?

Councilman Gibson: You have the floor, jar and all.

Councilman Green: Here again, that’s all I wanted to say was that we needed to have it in writing before we could move to - - -

Councilman Gibson: The Chair would like to just kinda get a nod up or down. Does AEP SWEPCO have a problem with that? Okay.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, again, this issue is not about the merits of the Clear Skies Act. It’s not. The mere fact that SWEPCO AEP has asked us to weigh in on this issue says at some point, this is going to carry some weight. And as I appreciate it, AEP is asking other municipalities to weigh in on this issue. And I’m pretty sure at a certain point, that information is going to be transmitted to either our Congressmen and/or our Senators or both saying regardless of what you do, the Council from New Orleans, the Council from Baton Rouge, the Council from Shreveport have said this and we believe that based upon this, that you should do this. I mean, lets just be honest. These gentlemen are in business and I have absolutely no problem with that. I mean, they’re in the business to make money and they’re also in the power business, and they’re quite concerned about a piece of legislation that could affect the way that they do business. And they’re asking us to weigh in on that issue. I think it sets a fundamental bad precedent for a local entity, no matter how good - - - because the next time, it might not be someone as good a corporate citizen as SWEPCO. But the fact of the matter is I have a fundamental problem advising the United Stated Congress or the United States Senate on an issue that’s before them in terms of their procedure. And I would have just as much problem if our - - - because lets just be honest. I’ve had problems with members (probably going to put my foot in my mouth, but that hadn’t stopped me before), with members of our State Legislative delegation weighing in on issues before the City Council. Telling us what to do. And for us to have that problem with members of our Louisiana State Legislative delegation, pontificating to us on the Council who is elected to deal with the business of Shreveport, I don’t think that we can conversely tell the folks in Washington, D. C. how to run their business because clearly, they have been dealing with this issue for quite some time. Again, this is not a vote on big business. This is not a check on you know how much of a supporter you are of AEP. The fundamental issue is should the City Council of the City of Shreveport weigh in on a 254 page piece of legislation that has been stalled in a Senate Committee for two years. And we’re kidding ourselves when we say, well you know what, AEP is good guys, I like ‘em, I trust ‘em, go, you know - - - do no harm. But that’s not our responsibility up here. And if this vote goes down 6-1, then fine. But just like Councilman Green let the vote go down 6-1 with the Pirates, I’ll be the lone dissenter and I just think it sets a bad precedent.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester. The Chair wants to be on record in the fact that 1) I appreciate what both Murray Lloyd did to deliver information in some of the issues regarding this situation. Also, Mike Strong and Mayor Hightower in terms of providing quick turn around and especially John Hubbard and Brian Bond. Mr. Hubbard, I think was within hours of delivering this information to all City Councilmen’s offices. I spent the weekend reviewing as much of this as I could. One thing that has resonated with me, this community has a tremendous amount of low income and fixed income families and individuals. We obviously are dealing with utility issues on a regular basis. We just came off a debate on a utility issue. One thing that has resonated with me regarding some of the presentations is the ability to deliver competitive utility rates of which this area more than probably anywhere else around the country meets competitive rates. We talked about - - - one of my colleagues asked our attorney to look into pulling some meter boxes if somebody - - - saying hit ‘em where it hurts. Personally, I think that this is a resolution, I think that Councilman Jackson has a point in terms of taking a couple of things out at the very end. Which I concur with and would like to see that amended here later on in today’s Council. And at the same time, personally I believe it is a resolution in nature that isn’t like we’re passing an ordinance to our Charter. It’s voicing some support for a utility that is definitely doing it’s good citizenship. Yes, there is always going to be debate in Washington, D. C., unlike you Councilman Jackson, I don’t think that end of the day that - - - I wish we did have that kind of weight in Washington, D. C. We’d see probably more capital money coming our way and the Mayor’s done a good job with his lobbying group to secure certainly those dollars. But personally, and from my constituents, I will be voting to support this piece of legislation.

Substitute motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Gibson to postpone.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson , could I ask for clarification. The postponement is?

Councilman Jackson: Just temporarily until we can get the four words stricken from the current document.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chairman, they about got those two words.

Councilman Gibson: Well, we will suspend the rules at the time that we do get the hard copy. Is there any other discussion on that issue?

Councilman Lester: And I hate to beat a dead horse gentlemen, but I mean the fact, you know we say that its not going to make a difference at the end of the day, and what happens in Washington, D. C. But ask yourself this question. If it would not make a difference to the ultimate outcome in Washington, D. C., why are we being asked to vote on this? So, obviously the fact that we’re weighing and certainly weighing in a positive direction is going to be used for the advancement of the legislation and for us to say otherwise is to divorce ourselves from logic. The other question that I have, that I don’t understand it, as I appreciate it, and everyone wants fair and competitive utility rates, that’s something very important. But there is a municipal Body called the Public Service Commission that deals with utility rates, not the Shreveport City Council. Now, I would love to have the responsibility of the utility rates, particularly Cable, because I think Cable has gotten outrageous. But here again, that’s not what we do. That’s not our purview. And for us to start, and again, it’s always, you know - - - one thing they taught us in law school. Bad facts make for bad law. And this is a very bad fact pattern, and we’re going to make a very bad decision and make a very bad law.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you and I respect that. As Councilman Lester said, this is nothing against SWEPCO, nor is it anything against the folks who don’t support it. I think it would not necessarily be unprecedented with regards to when we support appropriations and other things that we have a desire to get if you will, but again, and I don’t mean to trivialize this, but I don’t think- - - I think that we’re swimming deep in our own flattery. We know that this is not the way business is taken care of in Washington, but if it helps them to build a case to at least have some discussion, that was my only concern Mr. Chairman. And so, I would ask my postponement would be just so that we could strike out the words “and approve”, and the words “and passage”.(inaudible) it could be a debate or resolution.

Mr. Thompson: Is that postponement to another meeting date?

Councilman Jackson: No sir. Until such time that we had it complete.

Mr. Thompson: It’s already been done and I’ve emailed it to each of you, but I can read it.

Councilman Jackson: I’m fine Mr. Chairman, we’ve stricken those four words. Well, I would make a substitute motion to approve the amendment to the resolution first.

Mr. Thompson: Would you like for me to read it?

Councilman Gibson: And I will second, and yes Mr. Thompson, would you read it.

The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 18 of 2005

Delete the Now therefore be it resolved paragraph, and substitute the following:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that it urges the United States Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to consider the Clear Skies Act and report it to the Senate floor for debate.

Councilman Gibson: Does that meet what you were looking for Councilman Jackson?

Read by title and as read, Substitute motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 18 of 2005.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, and Carmody. 3.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt Resolution No. 18 of 2005 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, and Carmody. 3.

RESOLUTION NO. 20 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT WITH HIBERNIA BANK RELATIVE TO THE LEASE-PURCHASE COMPONENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECOVERY PROJECT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City has established the Neighborhood Recovery Project as a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization project; and

WHEREAS, the project will be administered by the Department of Community Development and includes several components including, but not limited to, a pilot mortgage program and lease-purchase program; and

WHEREAS, the City has been conditionally approved for a $2,000,000.00 non-revolving line of credit from the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) for the lease-purchase component of the Project; and

WHEREAS, under the terms of the loan, the City would be required to collateralize twenty-five (25%) percent of the loan amount.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the Mayor be and he is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, an irrevocable standby letter of credit with Hibernia Bank in connection with the loan from Fannie Mae relative to the lease-purchase component of the Neighborhood Recovery Project, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of the draft thereof which were filed for public inspection, together with the original copy of this resolution in the office of the Clerk of Council on February 8, 2005.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 21 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A TEN (10) YEAR PLAN BY THE MAYOR’S TASK FORCE ON HOMELESSNESS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Mayor has appointed a task force to study and develop a community plan to end chronic homelessness in the City of Shreveport and northwest Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the task force, in partnership with HOPE for the Homeless, has developed a ten (10) year plan which established objectives, long-term and short-term strategies and action steps in a collaborative and coordinated commitment to ending homelessness in the City an throughout northwest Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities have each unanimously passed resolutions endorsing community plans to end chronic homelessness similar to the plan developed by the task force.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the City Council hereby endorses a ten (10) year plan by the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness to end homelessness in the City of Shreveport and northwest Louisiana and supports the efforts of HOPE for the Homeless, the regional continuum of care in Northwest Louisiana in carrying out and fulfilling the objectives and strategies of the plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 22 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR CATAWBA DRIVE IN THE BRUNSWICK PLACE UNIT NO. 13, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal,

and regular session convened, that the dedication for Catawba Drive in the Brunswick Place Unit No. 13 in Section 33 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Catawba Drive be recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 23 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR HIDDEN OAKS CIRCLE IN THE HIDDEN TRACE UNIT NO. 7, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal,

and regular session convened, that the dedication for Hidden Oaks Circle in the Hidden Trace Unit No. 7 in Section 28 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Hidden Oaks Circle be and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 24 of 2005

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF CON-FAB ENGINEERING & WELDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFITS OF THE LOUISIANA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Act of 901 of 1981, Act 337 of 1982, Act 433 of 1987, Act 1024 of 1992, Act 581 of 1995, Act 624 of 1997, and Act 997 of 1999;

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program offers significant incentives for economic development to some of the most distressed areas in parish, and

WHEREAS, CON-FAB ENGINEERING & WELDING is located in Census Tract 233.00 Block Group 1 , which is a designated Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, said business will employ a minimum of 35% of its employees from the distressed groups targeted by the Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport states this endorsement is in agreement with the Overall Economic Development Plan for the City of Shreveport, and

WHEREAS, the attached Enterprise Zone map is marked showing the location of the business being endorsed, and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program requirements the City of Shreveport agrees:

1. To participate in the Enterprise Zone Program

2. To assist the Department in evaluating progress made in any Enterprise Zone within its

jurisdiction

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that CON-FAB ENGINEERING & WELDING and their project STEEL FABRICATIONS, Enterprise Zone Application # 2004-0381, is endorsed to participate in the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the

application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Just want to clarify with the Administration again, this is our standard endorsement of a business. Apparently, this one, I’ve not heard from anybody with Con-Fab Engineering and Welding. But I’m assuming that what we’re doing is that we’re basically endorsing their application to the State of Louisiana and are not foregoing any taxes to the City of Shreveport. Is that correct?

Mayor Hightower: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: Very good then. Then I will be voting in the affirmative and would encourage the other Council Members to do the same.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Question for the Administration. About a year ago, I had asked some things about this type of program that Louisiana, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program. And I remember, I think Mr. Antee, I believe it was you that said, ‘its really instituted by the State’, and that the State is responsible for making sure that they do what they say that they’re going to do in terms of jobs. And I just didn’t recall if you said some year ago or so, that we get a report on that from the State. Do you know?

Mr. Antee: I’m not sure.

Councilman Hogan: Could you find out? Could you get that answer for me?

Mr. Antee: We do.

Councilman Hogan: We do get a report? And I would just be interested to see copies of the latest reports that we have. I’m just - - - my concern is that we’re making sure that in giving them this benefitting this, in giving them this benefit, that they are following through with what they promised that they would do in terms of jobs and other things in the agreement. So, if you get a chance, I’d like to see some of those reports. Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: And Mr. Hogan, that kinda goes back to the point of my question. Is that really, we as the Council are basically just forwarding the City’s endorsement to the application to the State. It’s not money that we are forfeiting or giving to that business in the way of a tax abatement or anything else. And so, I’m not sure whether or not the Administration receives that. Again, it’s not our responsibility to follow up on whoever the business is as to whether they are in compliance. Because again, they’re still paying the taxes to the City of Shreveport. That’s why I traditionally ask the same question over and over again, and it’s not that I’m trying to penalize and existing business, but God knows we need every penny of sales taxes that we have in this community to run the program. And so, I appreciate where you’re saying it would be nice to see that someone is following up, but again that’s not the municipality’s responsibility. If indeed they were getting the reports, yes I’d like to see them as well. But it’s not that great a consequence to me. Thank you sir.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

11. Resolution No. 25 of 2005: A resolution stating the City of Shreveport’s endorsement of Calumet Lubricants Co., L.L. P. to participate in the benefits of the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to table. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 26 of 2005

RESOLUTION STATING CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF BASF CORPORATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFITS OF THE LOUISIANA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Act of 901 of 1981, Act 337 of 1982, Act 433 of 1987, Act 1024 of 1992, Act 581 of 1995, Act 624 of 1997, and Act 997 of 1999;

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program offers significant incentives for economic development to some of the most distressed areas in parish, and

WHEREAS, BASF CORPORATION is located in Census Tract 238.00 Block Group 3 , which is a designated Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, said business will employ a minimum of 35% of its employees from the distressed groups targeted by the Enterprise Zone, and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport states this endorsement is in agreement with the Overall Economic Development Plan for the City of Shreveport, and

WHEREAS, the attached Enterprise Zone map is marked showing the location of the business being endorsed, and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program requirements the City of Shreveport agrees:

1. To participate in the Enterprise Zone Program

2. To assist the Department in evaluating progress made in any Enterprise Zone within its

jurisdiction

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that BASF CORPORATION and their project ME COMPRESSION MACH, Enterprise Zone Application # 040243-0, is endorsed to participate in the Louisiana Enterprise Zone Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the

application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 27 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT INITIATIVE AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Department of Social Services has implemented the Earned Income Tax Credit Initiative in an effort to make taxpayers aware of their eligibility for the earned income tax credit; and

WHEREAS, the tax credit is a refund or federal income tax credit for working people with low or moderate earned income; and

WHERAS, the average earned income tax credit per family in Caddo Parish in 2003 was $2,126.00; and

WHEREAS, many families and working people are losing out on significant benefits available to them by failing to claim the refund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the Louisiana Earned Income Tax Credit Initiative by the Louisiana Department of Social Services is hereby supported and the City of Shreveport, through its Mayor, may offer assistance to the Louisiana Department of Social Services to publicize the availability of the earned income tax credit in accordance with applicable provision of law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I read the resolution and I’m at a lost as to- - - I mean, why is it on our agenda? Can someone advise me of that?

Mr. Antee: I’m not sure, unless that was the request to join in with State Treasurer John Kennedy, what he’s doing at the State level. Maybe Mr. Thompson can help us on that?

Mr. Thompson: No. Ms. Anderson prepared it, it came from the Administration, so I’m not really sure.

Substitution Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think won’t support the postponement, because I think it’s just about saying we endorse. Getting the word out about the earned income tax credit. That there is an earned income tax credit, that people may be more aware of it, and I think what it is, is to build a momentum that cities have bought into this idea of educating our people that in fact, there’s an average of over $2,000 that persons generally have the opportunity to get, that we want to make them more aware of. Because ultimately, that means that people who take advantage of that, can then spend that money in the State of Louisiana on sales tax, and we get that money on sales tax and those kinds of things. So, I think it’s an economic development initiative. I know Ms. Moore is here, but I also see Senator Jackson who is here from the State Senate and maybe Ms. Moore or Ms. Jackson, Senator Jackson, if you don’t mind, maybe you all together can shed a little bit more light on things. I think it’s something that’s really for us not to dissimilar to what we were talking about just a few minutes ago. Just basically joining in with others who are saying that the earned income tax credit can be a financial aid and assistance to those who fall in those income categories. Is that correct?

Ms. Moore: A tremendous amount of money was being lost in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions across the State. And this is an initiative to raise public awareness in that area and to make sue that those low income persons are benefitting from the earned income tax credits. It is an initiative from the State Department of Social Services. We have a liaison office here in Shreveport. The Mayor was asked to participate with this along with the Council and so we certainly endorse this and ask that you vote on this today.

Councilman Jackson: I would just ask and I don’t maybe if Councilman Lester is so inclined to withdraw the postponement and maybe we can take action on it today.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Lester, the floor is yours and then if you want to respond to Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Lester: Sure, sure I can. Thank you. I again, my question was what was the purpose of this particular ordinance or this particular piece being on the agenda? I mean generally speaking, my question is, is there some move afoot to do away with the earned income tax credit? Or are we saying that we’re supporting it?

Ms. Moore: We’re supporting it.

Councilman Lester: And certainly as the City Councilman for District A, and I can’t speak for any other district, the people that live in District A are well aware of the earned income tax credit and if you don’t believe me, you can pass by any car lot or any other of those businesses around the first of the year. And any of those other businesses that generally deal in cash situations, that know when the money is coming and when monies are going to be hitting the streets, because there is definitely an economic shot in the arm as it relates to those things. So again, if the purpose of this is to say that we support the initiative, then that’s fine. But again, my question was, are we saying that someone is going to do away with the earned income tax initiative. Okay, well that answers my question.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester. Senator Jackson, could I ask you to come forward to just give your observations on this. And we appreciate your involvement, and thank you for being here today.

Senator Jackson: I’m really here on an issue that you have already passed. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This resolution is just as Ms. Moore said. A part of a public awareness campaign to not only bring attention to the earned income tax credit, but to talk about ways that families can use that credit and that refund for issues of their sustainability particularly using the money as down payment for housing assistance, and in programs that are generally related to the operations of City government. So we would appreciate your support for that initiative. Thank you for passing the earlier resolution.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Senator Jackson, appreciate you being here. Mr. Lester, there was a request from Councilman Jackson to remove your postponement.

Councilman Lester: At this time,

Councilman Gibson: Are you so inclined?

Councilman Lester: Yes, I’m so inclined. I will withdraw my motion to postpone.

Motion to adopt approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Mr. Thompson: We have one other in this section Mr. Chairman.

Resolution No. 35 of 2005: A resolution amending the City Council Rules of Procedure relative to rules of debate and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief with this. But first of all, I brought this up because since we’ve been on the Council, a little over two years, but there’ve been several times when the rules have been breached. If I had my choice, I’d call a meeting and put us all in the back room and hash this out. But that would violate our public meetings rule because I would prefer that we take care of this business behind closed doors. Nonetheless, I feel it is necessary and we have some 18 or 19 months left to go on the Council in our terms. But again, as it’s been demonstrated before that some people, when they get their minds set on something, it doesn’t matter what the rules say, they intend to go ahead and press forward and get their points across regardless of what the rules of the Council or Roberts Rules of Order say. Somebody said it’s a matter of respect. Well, it is a matter of respect and people have demonstrated that they are not going to respect - - - say for example when a Point of Order is called. And by the way, it does say that this is when a Point of Order is called, It’s not anyone’s speaking in general. And so, as I mentioned before, a few weeks ago at our other meeting, we could not ask someone to be dismissed from the meeting, as Roberts Rules of Order says. This would be a violation of the City Charter that says Councilmen shall have a right to vote on agenda items. So my suggestion was that they would not be allowed to speak for the remainder of the meeting, but they would be allowed to continue to vote. This is only a suggestion, and so, I do appreciate the second Councilman Carmody, or was it Councilman Jackson that seconded this motion? And it’s only a suggestion, but I’m looking for ideas and I’m not trying to spend the rest of the night debating this, but I hope that we can reach a solution that will be agreeable to everyone. That will prove to the public that we are a Council. That we don’t think we’re above of keeping rules. In fact, we should be the epitome of rule keeping here on this Council. So, with that, I’m open for discussion.

Councilman Carmody: Gentlemen, as y’all were all aware, I was under the weather last Council Meeting, but I did watch the meeting on television and I was surprised that a second was not given to Mr. Hogan, at least to bring this issue up for discussion. My comments are going to be short and sweet. And that is that I really don’t see the necessity to add any additional rules to our Council because we have agreed or should be able to agree to operate under the existing rules. If we can’t do that, then it is going to be chaos and pandemonium. Again, as I had explained to Councilman Hogan when he called to talk to me about it, I think that we have a consensus if we all understand what the word S T O P means. If not, there’s no amount of rules or additional changes in our rules of procedure to make somebody yield the floor. I’ve seen it, unfortunately, occur too may times. And I’m sure it has a tendency to happen when we’re in the heat of the moment. Our blood pressure is up, we want to get our points across. We don’t want to yield, but again, gentlemen it takes at least four of us to consent and create a consensus as to where we’re going to go. I appreciate Councilman Hogan’s efforts here. But my recommendation is that we abide by the existing rules. We agreed to enforce those, we agreed to when they are enforced on each of us individually, that we recognize the Chair in calling for the Point of Order. And a person is out of order, let us as a Council then vote to challenge the Chair, if we feel like he has not made the appropriate ruling. And go from there. But again, I believe that each one of us is charged to try to do the business of this community and its citizens. And to do it in as professional manner as is possible by seven completely different personalities. But all hopefully having the same common goal. And that’s my commitment to y’all. I want to work to make a better Shreveport. That’s why I’m here, that’s why I take the time. And I’m hoping that’s why you’re here as well. I think that’s really why you asked the people to vote for you. That’s the same commitment I made. So, I reaffirm my commitment to you, that I’m willing to abide by the existing rules of order without any modification. And again, that’s not to disparage Councilman Hogan for his effort. But I did feel as I laid there in bed, that c’mon guys, one of y’all second this man, so at least y’all can talk about it. And that’s why I told him, I’d like to talk about it. Because I do think its something that we ought to remember. Lets agree to agree, and lets abide by the existing rules. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Onto what Councilman Carmody said, I totally agree. And of course, I talked to Councilman Hogan about it and I just think that in everything you’re going to have some times when you just don’t feel in your heart that you need to stop, And of course, he asked for some other innovative ideas as to what we can do. And of course I still have my ‘Behavior Jar’ and just kinda challenge him to put some money in it. I’ll be keeping it here. So, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: We have rules of the Council that were enacted back in 1982. And I think that they are more than adequate and in Section 2.4 it states very clearly the Chairman shall preside at all Council Meetings and shall be responsible for the orderly conduct of the meeting. So, I think what we have here is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation. I will not support it. I would urge the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman to maintain order, to be in order and I don’t think we’ll have this problem. Now, I agree with Councilman Carmody. It’s a matter of respect and I don’t think that there’s a problem at the present time that requires this piece of legislation, so I’ll be voting no.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I want to say very briefly and I think you or whoever said it, that we were, I think Councilman Hogan, that we didn’t have to debate all night about it and I don’t think we do. I made a joke to Councilman Walford, that we’ve got a lot of rules now and don’t follow those, so I don’t know what adding another one would do. But I say this only in jest. The truth of it is I support the spirit in which Councilman Hogan brings this to us. And I think the very fact that he did, at least has us having that discussion and I think that we ought to be approaching embarrassment to think that we’re going to seriously consider this kind of an issue, and that it’s become a necessity to even consider this kind of issue. So, I think it serves to bring into focus what it is that ought to be our aim and our goal with regards to how we conduct Council Meeting. But I certainly commend Councilman Hogan for making it an issue worthy of at least bringing to this body,

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have problems with this. And I have spoken to Councilman Hogan about some of the concerns that I have. Cause certainly when we sit here, we speak not only for ourselves, but we speak for the entirety of our districts. And anything that would prevent a member for their district, I think, is not a positive thing and I think it basically, we’re disenfranchising the people that put us here. I think that- - - we talk about respect for each other and I think that’s tantamount. But respect for each other as Councilmen goes far beyond respecting each other in terms of speaking. Respect for each other as Councilmen deals with issues in terms of when someone has an issue in their particular district. And they say ‘listen, this is a District A, or District F, or District G issue and I’ve had my meetings and I ask you to support this’. And for one reason or another, because either you’re upset with someone, or you’re friends with someone, you decide not to support that issue in that particular person’s district, that you don’t even have a dog in the fight. So, I think this is more a symptom that the disease itself. I think the real issue is we need to start to take our jobs seriously, and I’m not saying that we don’t. But I think that we need to go back and have a little bit more respect for each other. And not from a personal level, from the level of that we are standing in the shoes of 17 or 18,000,000 other people who have for one reason or another put their faith and trust in us to do this job. And for us to denigrate another person or to speak ill of another person or do some of the things that are done in terms of supporting this particular issue and not supporting that particular issue, I think that’s symptomatic of the cause. I really don’t think that this is necessary. Because as I recall, the issue that brought this up was a meeting and the Vice-Chairman did not call the Chairman out of order at the time. He allowed the issue to linger and at a later point, then we got into this whole discussion about whether or not there was a Point of Order and things of that nature. We have rules and we can use the rules to help facilitate an orderly flow of a meeting to help facilitate the orderly flow of a discussion, or we can use the rules to delay someone or try to prevent someone from doing or try to prevent someone from accomplishing that, that they are trying to do. And a lot of that has been happening, and I think it needs to stop. And I’m glad to hear everyone saying that this is something that they are taking issue with and the fact that Councilman Hogan brought this to our attention, I think is a positive thing. But I think it should extend to more than just this. I mean, just look at what’s going on as it relates to the hotel situation. You have rules, you have regulations, but we have had that discussion over a period of years, over period of months, over a period of days, over a period of hours, and yet and still we are continuing to beat the same dead horse with the same dead issue. And it’s delay, delay, delay. So again, if the spirit that this is offered is ‘lets start to work together as a Council’, and I’m going to take a little umbrage with something Councilman Carmody said. Our job not always is to agree. It’s to disagree and not be disagreeable. There is a way to disagree. There is a way to have dissent, and not lead the person to the left or to the right feeling less of a person or denigrated. And I think we need to start doing those types of things. For the public to expect that all seven of us to be marching in locked step all of the time on every particular issue, just belies the facts, belies the truth and believes that we have this completely homogenous society, and we don’t. We’re different. Different backgrounds, different ideas, but when we work together, and we have worked together. And I think that those opportunities that we worked together are a lot better than those opportunities that we worked apart. So, I said, I wasn’t going to talk all night and so, I’m going to be quiet. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’d like to conclude my remarks, and if we are not going to obey the rules that there should be consequences. I don’t think that’s asking too much of an elected official of anybody that stands before this council to address us or anyone in this room in fact that you keep the rules. But anyway, I appreciate your comment and I appreciate the discussion and I believe maybe we have made some head way and at least bringing this to the forefront and reminding each of us of what our responsibility is up on this platform. I was reading a passage just a few days ago that I think is relevant, and I’ve never done this before, I have never brought my bible with me to council meeting, but it’s relevant and I am going to read it, you know, a lot of philosophers have been quoted from here by some of us, but one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived was, Paul the Apostle and I am going to read out of James, Chapter 1, verse 19 it says, and I am going to preclude this by saying that sometimes when this has happened in the past that it may not show on the outside but the anger is there on the inside and we’re determined to get our point across, so it’s relevant here. If you’ll listen with me, it’s verse 19 says, “ My dear brother, take note of this, everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires”. And the last time I checked each of up here are believers and we professed to be Christians, so I hope that you would take this to heart. One more note that I am going to read, I have a New Application, A New Life Application, or whether excuse a me, A New International Version Life Application Bible, and I want to read the commentary at the bottom for verse 19-20. It says, “this verses speak of anger that erupts when our egos are bruised. I am hurt, my opinions are not being heard, when injustice and sin occur we should be angry because others are being hurt, but we should not become angry when we fail to win an argument, or when we feel offended or neglected. Selfish anger never helps anyone.” Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Any other question or comments?

We have a motion and a second on the floor on item, this is item 20, which one Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson: The one that was added.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, it was an added item.

Councilman Lester: My machine is not working, my vote is “no.”

Motion fails by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, and Green. 5. Ayes: Councilmen Hogan and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Gibson: If I could, I would like to recognize Danny Highland, who represents the local carpenter 764, which is the Training Director, he does a tremendous job in the area in terms of training – work force training, which keeps our workforce competitive, and keeps quality workers on the payroll.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (not to be adopted prior to Mar. 8, 2005)

1. Resolution No. 28 of 2005: A resolution donating Police video camera equipment to the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office in Shreveport, Louisiana and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 29 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the donation of surplus Shreveport Fire Department Equipment to Caddo Parish Fire District Number 8 and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 30 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the donation of Shreveport Police Department property and otherwise providing with respect thereto. Nancy

4. Resolution No. 31 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the donation of the Shreveport Police Department property and otherwise providing with respect thereto. Preacher

5. Resolution No. 32 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the donation of Shreveport Police Department property and otherwise providing with respect thereto. Quest

6. Resolution No. 33 of 2005: A resolution authorization the donation of certain surplus furniture and equipment to the YWCA of Northwest Louisiana, Inc. And otherwise provide with respect thereto.

7. Resolution No. 34 of 2005: A resolution stating the City of Shreveport’s endorsement of Mid-City Plaza, LLC to participate in the benefits of the Louisiana Restoration Tax Abatement Program and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green, on introduction of Resolution No(s). 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 2005, to lay over until the March 8, 2005 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (not to be adopted prior to Mar. 8, 2005)

1. Ordinance No. 19 of 2005: An ordinance authorizing and providing for an encroachment into a portion of the utility easement located adjacent to the north side of the New Convention Center and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 20 of 2005: ZONING: C-7-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on north side of Idema, 425 feet west of Moore, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence District, to I-1, Light Industry District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

3. Ordinance No. 21 of 2005: ZONING: C-8-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the east side of Mansfield Road 560 feet north of Ardis Taylor, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from I-1, Light Industry District, to B-3, Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

4. Ordinance No. 22 of 2005: ZONING: C-09-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on a tract of land 750 feet north of W. 70th Street and 350 feet west of Jewella, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban Multiple-Family Residence District, to I-2, Heavy Industrial District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan, on introduction of ordinances 19, 20, 21, and 22, to lay over until the March 8, 2005 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (not to be adopted prior to Mar. 22, 2005)

Mr. Thompson: We have 23, and one that was added concerning the donation of City-owned property.

1. Ordinance No. 23 of 2005: An ordinance authorizing the donation of City-owned property identified as Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, Queensborough Addition Subdivision to Shreveport/Bossier Community Renewal and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

2. Ordinance No. 24 of 2005: An Ordinance authorizing the donation of City-Owned Property in the Lakeside subdivision to Urban Housing of America, Louisiana Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan, on introduction of Ordinance No(s). 23 and 24 of 2005 to lay over until March 8, 2005 meeting.

Councilman Jackson: Question.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Green, you made the motion do you have any comments on it?

Councilman Green: No sir.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Do we – this is just for introduction until March. I’m sorry Mr. Chairman I will wait until we take it up in the meeting.

Councilman Gibson: Any other discussion?

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE(numbers are assigned ordinance numbers)

1. Ordinance No. 12 of 2005: An ordinance amending the 2005 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 25, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. The Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1.

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

Delete the portion of the ordinance changing Section 1 (Estimated Receipts) and Section 2 (Appropriations) and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Taxes and Special Assessments by $1,000,000.

Increase Transfer from the Riverfront Fund by $2,800,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease General Government - Operating Reserves by $200,000.

Increase Fire - Personal Services by $4,000,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford, to adopt Amendment No. 1. to Ordinance No. 12 of 2005. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Ordinance No. 12 of 2005 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

.

2. Ordinance No. 13 of 2005:An ordinance amending the 2005 Budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 25, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. The Clerk read the amendment.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 13 of 2005, An Ordinance Amending the 2005 Budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund.

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

After the “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED” clause, delete the next two lines dealing with Section 2 (Appropriations) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts), decrease Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2005 by $6,000,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations), decrease Liability Reserves by $6,000,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green, to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 13 of 2005. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Ordinance No. 13 of 2005 as amended.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Discussion, Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Just for the sake of making sure the public understands what we are moving through here, these are a series of budget amendments, in order to take care of the State Firefighter’s Pension System, and the Council’s actions are at the request of the Administration to re-budget and to reallocate funds to pay those services. I did want to make sure that we understood that we are actually making $4,000,000 worth of payment for 2005, is that not correct Mr. Dark? Approximately, another $6,000,000 is being allocated to pay for the last 30 months prior to this year, is that correct?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: So, that is a total of ten million dollars that we are reallocating to pay for this, and as I appreciate it the $4,000,000 that 2005 is now budgeted for will be an annual reoccurring expense to the City?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: And that is for just the State Firefighters Pension System, correct? There’s an additional $3,000,000 for the Police Retirement, is that correct sir that is an annual expense?

Mr. Dark: Which is already budgeted, yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: Correct, but I just wanted to make sure that we were qualifying that, and thank you gentlemen, I appreciate y’all allowing me to at least help the public understand.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, sir.

Councilman Lester: And, also for the public’s information that is – this money is being budgeted because the State Supreme Court mandated the judgement. This was not a decision that we made, this is response to an adverse ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, a ruling that I might add, well let me be quite because I am going to get in trouble, the fact of the matter is that we won on the District Court level and the Appellant Court level, and the City lost at the State Supreme Court. So we just need to – since we are informing the pubic we want to make sure that, that’s out there as well.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Councilman Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Any other comments from Council?

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 14 of 2005: An ordinance relative to the issuance of $40,000,000 revenue bonds for the Convention Center/Hotel Project

Having passed first reading on February 8, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson, to adopt. The Clerk read the amendment:

Amend the Ordinance as follows:

Delete the Ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson, to adopt Amendment No. 1

Councilman Walford: Question, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Walford.

Councilman Walford: So, we voting on an amendment or an totally amended ordinance?

Mr. Thompson: It’s an amendment, which totally gives you an new ordinance.

Councilman Walford: Okay, but we still vote on it as an amendment?

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Walford: Okay.

Councilman Green: Who’s the sponsor of the amendment?

Mr. Thompson: The Administration. It’s the Bond Attorneys.

Mr. Antee: It’s basically, it’s clarifying some typos, it’s also clarifying that the LCDA, as an issuer will distribute the different documents and those – that’s the primary difference in the amendment. Mr. Thompson, did you get a red lined version showing those couple of changes?

Mr. Thompson: I don’t recall getting that, but we did a completely new ordinance.

Mr. Antee: But, that’s what it changed.

Councilman Green: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Councilman Green. Any other discussion on the amendment?

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Gentlemen, I know that my position is clear on this and again my vote is going to reflect the fact that I still thought that this project required and should have gone before the public. The financial information that we just have gone through to educate to the public I think is important to consider from a standpoint of the City is now taking on additional expenses that we did not anticipate, thanks be to God that we budgeted for part of them, but some of them we didn’t budget for and that’s just the nature of doing of business, you have things that occur. In conjunction with the Fire Retirement and the Police, which again, Mr. Dark just confirmed that, that is another seven million dollars in reoccurring annual debt, part of it was budgeted but the four million will be an addition. We also need to look at the fact that they are declining Riverboat revenues, and we always seem to go to the Riverfront Fund in order to make the City whole, which is where you would go, it is our piggy bank, it is our cash cow that we unfortunately have to delve into when we are in need of additional money in access to what we have. What my thought is, is general obligation bonds appeared to have been a much better route for us to try and facilitate financing for the hotel, and the reason I say that is because, what could very well happen would be in a scenario in which the hotel project does not generate enough revenue to cover it’s debt in operational services, future Mayors, and future Council’s will have to look to the General Fund, in order to cover those obligations. It’s a 30 year obligation just on the debt service for the $40,000,000 that we are looking at, there additional cost to operate the hotel and pay the management fees, it is a quite complicated financial endeavor, but a General Obligation Bond submitted to the public to go ahead and approve for that function, would mean that if there is a short fall that the public would understand that there would be an automatic increase in the millage to cover the City’s debt obligation. And it would ensure that the current level of municipal services that are being delivered would not be cut if the hotel fails to perform to our hopes and expectations. I realize that today I’m facing another four three vote, that and I can live with that. But, I make this point to the public that you were not offered an opportunity to consider this and I do think it’s an disservice if future Mayors, and future Council’s have to explain to us why they curtailing our City’s services because of a debt obligation that the public never voted on. My hope is to that thing goes gang busters, but without having offered the opportunity to the public to consider it, I am not going to vote in support of the issuance of the debt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Councilman Carmody. Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to – since we are on this Amendment No. 1, and we really don’t have anything to discuss until we decide whether or not the ordinance is going to be amended or not, I would like to call for the question on the vote for Amendment No. 1, and then we can have discussion on the ordinance as amended.

Motion Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Walford to call for question. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Councilman Gibson: In terms of a motion, I need a motion and a second on the motion as amended.

Councilman Jackson: No, no we got to vote on the amendment now.

Councilman Gibson: Oh, excuse me, on the amendment, we had a motion and a second on the amendment. Thank you, Councilman Jackson.

Motion to adopt Amendment No. 1. approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Green, and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilmen Carmody and Hogan. 2.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt the ordinance as amended.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, discussion.

Councilman Jackson: None.

Councilman Gibson: The Chair, has discussion in the fact that one, I want to apologize to my colleagues, this item was quite far down on the agenda as you go through a lot of the information that was given to us over the weekend from our work session, I had a chance to review this particular piece of legislation. I sent a memo over to Mayor Hightower, earlier this week, Mayor, I’d like – well first of all I asked in the memo that in reading Ordinance 14, that is scheduled for passage tomorrow, I have noted that there are some missing pieces of information that are referenced in the legislation. And for me to be able to cast a vote I have personal concerns about that. The first one Mr. Mayor, is an item in section one of this ordinance to fund $40,000,000 that says that the distribution of a preliminary official statement in the forms substantially as submitted to the City and files with official minutes of the City. Could you explain to me what the official statement is in reference to the $40,000,000?

Mr. Antee: It’s the actual bond documents that are necessary in order to sell the bonds. It’s with, I think, this council voted on 16 or 17 bond issuances since it’s come into office and it’s done on every single one basically, explaining to the potential bond purchasers and everybody else exactly what is going on.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, in section two, an indenture agreement, of which you have provided and just for the audience’s edification, we were given to this, Mr. Thompson, what time did we get this information?

Mr. Thompson: Some of you got it after the council meeting started, I think you got it just before the council meeting.

Councilman Gibson: So about 2:55, and somewhere after that, that’s what we’re looking at here. The indenture agreement, Mr. Antee?

Mr. Antee: If I could explain, we did get your request this morning, we got the information from the bond attorneys as soon as we got that we provided it – I personally handed it to Mr. Thompson, about 2:30 this afternoon, I appreciate that. The reason why it hadn’t been presented before is because never has anybody asking with the last 16 on this council for those particular documents and if you would like we can have those each and every time for everyone that comes know. But, that’s why there was no sinister motive or anything that hadn’t been to practice and when you requested it, we got it just as soon as we could.

Councilman Gibson: I appreciate it, I was making a note, first of all we’ve never had a publicly funded hotel either.

Mr. Antee: But these documents are the indenture agreement is the same as every other loan, it’s the loan agreement, the actual agreement, and the bases of the loan and it’s the same as all the others, except for the different terms of this particular loan.

Councilman Gibson: And the loan agreement itself?

Mr. Antee: The indenture and loan agreement is the loan agreement. The indenture and the loan agreement establishes the debt in the agreement in regards to the debt, it’s kind of like your note and your mortgage on your house.

Councilman Gibson: And okay, using your analogy of my loan agreement at the house, I would have been afforded this information to look at, before signing off on, and again this is my own personal observation. And again, I want to apologize to my colleagues, but at the same time I will not apologize in fact that I think that Councilman Carmody, you are the one that asked that it be distributed. But, for me to be able to cast a vote at this point and time to support this, I got to be able to look at this detailed information because again, it’s reference into the main ordinance, talking about the loan agreement and again, that burden of proof was placed on the administration to be able to provide that information.

Mr. Antee: We apologize for not providing it before, but since you voted on 16 and never asked for it, it was hard to assume you were going to ask for this one, so we will be glad to provide it on all of them.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Antee, I appreciate that, but again we’ve never been voted on a $52 million or $40 million of a hotel, most of those where going where tax payer money was being spent on infrastructure and city services, it wasn’t on a publicly financed hotel, there’s a big difference.

Mr. Antee: This is the third time we’ve voted on this one.

Councilman Gibson: That’s why I will apologize to the Mayor and Ken Antee specifically in the fact that this is completely out of the norm of business for the City of Shreveport in terms of how we do business and why I asked for it. Because we’ve never seen anything like this before in terms of a publicly funded hotel. Is that not correct Mr. Antee?

Mr. Antee: You should have. We’ve provided. It’s the third vote on this issue.

Councilman Gibson: We done other hotels?

Mr. Antee: This is the third vote on this issue.

Councilman Gibson: We’ve done hotels?

Mr. Antee: Oh no sir.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, thank you. That as a result, I would make a motion that we postpone this for two weeks.

Councilman Carmody: Is that a substitute motion?

Substitute motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to postpone Ordinance No 14 of 2005 until the next regular meeting.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say, I understand what Mr. Antee has said, and I guess it resonates with me as well. I guess in the difference times we’ve (inaudible) money, I don’t put the hotel over and above everything else we do. I think every time we come here to vote, I think the public’s sentiment is becoming somehow or another, the hotel is the most important thing that’s ever happened in Shreveport and the truth is we’ve passed millions of dollars, even more than $40,000,000 in bonds, in refinancing, all these things. And there were documents, the exact same size and I would shudder to think that any Councilman, of course outside of myself read every page. But nonetheless, you know I’m being facetious because I don’t think, and I said to another Councilman, that this has been on the agenda for a couple of weeks, laid over. We’ve had time to look at it and the Administration’s apologized for not getting, I guess they had just asked for it if you will, but I really think that to postpone it Mr. Chairman, I can remember, and I just had to say this, I can remember times when we’ve postponed things in the past only to postpone them again. Because after the delay of the two week time frame, we discover that we still had not read or had not done what we should have. So, I’m not certainly saying, lets err on the side of moving fast, but I do think this certainly is time sensitive, and we’ve had this before us. This is not the first time its been before us. I think that we ought to move forward. I certainly am not a proponent of postponing. I’m willing to take a recess until we have time to read as much as we think is necessary. And then come back and vote on it if we’d like to. But I think to wait another two weeks is not going to afford us anymore opportunities than what we’ve had in the past two weeks. And I know the information has been available. And we have it now, and even in it’s final form, with very few other than cosmetic changes. So, I certainly would ask this Council to be cognizant of the fact that when we make statements about what we need to do and what we think we need to be able to read, that the citizens would have to wonder whether or not we read, are we in the practice of reading every one of them. If we’re not, then we put this project, and I know in our conversations, we talked about this is a hotel, we’ve never done this before. But most projects we entered into the first time, we’d never done that particular project before. We may have done things like ‘em. But I just wanted to ask this Council to lets face the challenge of moving forward and not accept what I think is expedient and postponing and delays.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to go back, this particular item, item 14, to use City Council speech, is what we call a two reader. Which means it was on the agenda two weeks ago, and then it’s on this agenda. And we could not have voted on it two weeks ago, but we could have voted for it today. Now, also for the public’s edification, the Council Agendas come out on the Thursday before the meeting. So, we’re talking about two weeks and a Thursday, where the agenda is faxed to us or emailed and we’re made aware of everything that’s going to be on the agenda. I say that and the thing that bothers me about this whole, a lot of this conversation that we’ve been having, is we’ve have not been intellectually honest with the folks, with our constituents, and I’ll tell you why. It always comes down to the last minute and everyone gives us a litany of questions and I need this document, I need this document, I need this document, and I think at a certain point and I’m trying not to go back against what we did a few minutes ago, as we talked about respecting each others persons or what have you, but I have to ask if this is something that is as important as we say that it is, then my kids are three and I’m teaching them that reading is fundamental. And I think we have a fiduciary duty and a duty to exercise due diligence. Now, in my mind, exercising your fiduciary duty and your due diligence is not coming before the Council on the Tuesday of a vote and asking for some documents or asking for some documents the Friday before or the Monday before, when something has been on the agenda for at least two meetings. And saying before the public - - - reciting a number of questions, well what about Section 1, what about Section 2, what about Section 5 or what have you. I think the intellectually honest thing to do would be to say, if you have a concern, then these concerns that you had did not just pop up. I have to think because in the course and scope of your duties, you would have read the information. And if you had concerns or questions, you would have made those known and you would have requested those documents and met with whoever you needed to meet with so that you can get a resolution or have the questions answered in your mind. I just have a problem with you know, the back and forth. You know again, and sometimes, I can be such a lawyer. But I remember in Law School, they said you know when the law is on your side, you argue the law. When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. And when you don’t have the law and you don’t have the facts, you argue like hell. And it seems like to me what’s been happening is, we talked about the law until it’s blue in the face. We talked about the facts until it’s blue in the face. We’ve spent thousands of dollars on study after study. We’ve gone to place after place, and we have talked this thing to it’s absolute end equation. And lets just be honest. Whether we waited two weeks, four weeks, one month, one year, or until the good Lord comes home, the vote is still going to be 4-3. So lets just acknowledge that. Lets just acknowledge that I am not in favor of this particular project. I am not going to ever be in favor of this particular project. But for us to throw out to the community like there is something that’s hiding. No, it’s not. To say ‘well Section 1, doesn’t repeat, and you know, Councilman Jackson is right. We have voted on millions of dollars. Bond refinancing, time after time, after time. Anyone up here has an interest in any issue, all we have to do is ask either Sharon or Art, or the Administration to give us the information and generally speaking within 24 or 48 hours, the information is there. And for us to wait till the last minute, I just think it’s less than intellectually honest with ourselves, as a Body and with the community and I think it does a disservice. If, and I’ve said this before, if you have a position that says, I am philosophically opposed to the City of Shreveport owning and operating a hotel in any shape or form, whether it be from the City standpoint, whether it be from a quasi governmental entity or what have you, say that, state that position and lets move forward. But for us to keep continuing to throw out, as if the ball is being hidden. If we’re hiding something, we’re hiding it in plain view gentlemen. And I think for us to say otherwise is just not fair. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Councilman Hogan. Just a quick clarification on what was just said. And then I was considered one of the three votes, which is true. The other part that is not true, is that I’m against the project. Everything that I’ve read, all the information I’ve seen points to the fact that a hotel for this Convention Center to be successful, it requires a hotel along with that. I don’t have a problem with that. The only thing that I have a problem with is (inaudible) Councilman Carmody has said a moment ago, is that I’m not changing my position, that I still believe that the public should have been required to vote on it. I’m not going to make a big issue over that. It’s done and I’ve accepted the fact, I’m not going to get my way on this. I’ve fulfilled my responsibility to my people in District E however. And so, but, again, I hope that the hotel succeeds. And it was not that I was against the project, I just wanted to make that clear to the people in this room and the people listening by T.V., that I’m in favor of the project under that condition. Thank you.

Councilman Gibson: Before I go to Councilman Green, he will probably be calling the question, and I do want to weigh in on this.

Councilman Walford: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, Point of Order I believe. You’ve had one debate, it would be Councilman Green’s turn at it.

Councilman Carmody: That is correct.

Councilman Walford: Then I would like a turn.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Green. Thank you Councilman.

Councilman Green: With all due respect sir, I will let you finish it. I’m not going to call for the question.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Green, I appreciate that. Personally, I’ve said time and time again, we have a unique project- - -

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to point this out. You’ve already had one chance to speak. It’s actually - - - you need to - - -

Councilman Gibson: I believe he deferred, the Councilman deferred over to me, is that correct?

Councilman Jackson: But you’re in violation of - - -

Councilman Gibson: Well again, (inaudible) Councilman Walford.

Councilman Walford: Thank you Councilman Carmody. I just want to make a couple of points. And Councilman Lester’s alluded to it. Actually, I just wanted to make a couple of thank yous. Because I have requested information. Mr. Mayor of Mr. Antee, if you would convey my thanks to Laura Poche, I got what I thought was an excellent briefing in laymen’s terms to tell me the issues in the lawsuit. Mr. Antee, I requested some information from you this morning, and I heard the fax ringing before you and I finished our conversation. Mr. Mayor, I called and asked (I’m going to lose my voice here in a minute), I asked for information from you this morning. I left a message, you were back to me within an hour or so. And were responsive. I haven’t found anything that I’ve asked for that I wasn’t provided. So I will extend those thanks. Like Mr. Lester, I think we need to move on. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Basically, I’d just like to say that we’ve spent money on the study, money to study the study. We’ve had long Council Meetings, and now we’re going to be paying attorneys. If you add all of this up, and it’s still not over yet, the money that we are wasting would be the first down payment on the hotel once we get it. We have different reasons as to why I’m not for it, and of course as one of my colleagues read a scripture by Paul today, Jesus says ‘those that are for us are not against us’. You don’t have a vote to say well, I’m neutral. When you press this button up here, it’s going to be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. It’s not going to be an in between vote. It’s just going to be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. And then we talk about the public when it’s convenient. We say ‘well, I just think the public ought to be able’. Well, this lawsuit, we have not had the public to vote whether or not we spent already $22,000 for January, then we got to pay February’s bill, and then we got some lawyers on the clock now to pay March and April’s bill because as soon as this one is over, another one will be filed. And then I’ve never heard so much about ‘well, the reason we want to do this is because the vote was 4-3’. Well, this is my second time on this Council. I’ve experienced 4-3. But it’s only an issue when it’s on an opposite side. What if the vote had been 4-3 against? Would we be going through all this? No. And here again, if we boil it down to the real issue, and I hope I don’t have to say this again. It’s not about the hotel, it’s not about whether we need the hotel. It just happens to be the wrong folk heading. Again, Mr. Mayor, if you were not heading it. If in fact your term had been up this last year when the election was, and a new guy was sitting over there, (and I learned a new word the other day, and I got this from some people, and I’m just going to state it and I hope I don’t get in trouble), if it had been from the ‘Blue Bloods’ (whatever that means), then we wouldn’t be going through this. Because there is just a whole lot of conglamorative stuff that’s there. It’s not about whether we need it Mr. Mayor. Again, I’ll tell you. It’s about you. There are some people that just want to get one good shot at you to put a thumb up to say we got him. And you must have the Lord on your side, and you must pray a whole lot, because they haven’t got you yet. So, hold what you’ve got and keep on praying. And I pray for you daily. They just want to get you one time. So every week, they have this little lunch over in Bossier, across the street from El Chico’s, and they meet over there with their little caravan and then they get all the questions and I guess they fax them, and they send them, and they call and they say ‘what can we say this week?’ And so they meet over there. In fact, next Tuesday, I don’t think I have anything to do, I’m going to be over there sitting at the first table when they come in and I’ll give you a list of who they are (if they don’t change the meeting). But, its not about this hotel being built. It’s not whether we need one, it’s just that they just don’t want Keith Hightower to have his signature on it that he was the one that built the two largest projects in the history of Shreveport, Louisiana. That’s all it is. Other than that, it would be thumbs up, and since it’s not, and since my cousin didn’t do it, or since my friend didn’t do it. We talk about all of the different services, whose going to do ‘em and whose going to do whatever. Well, the arts of politics is who gets what, when, where and how. That’s all. You go to Washington, you can go to Baton Rouge, you can go all over America. That’s all it’s about. Politics as to whose going to get it and whose going to do it. The next Mayor that sit in that seat. He’s going to have some folk, a team that he works with. The next one is going to have a team. It just all depends on what whether or not you like me or whether or not you want to be on my team. But I just think we ought to do it for the benefit of our City and for our citizens and stop lying to ‘em like we trying to take care of their best interest and we want to make sure that all the ‘T’s are crossed. Right now, it’s a quarter to six. The meeting that we got and the legislation that we got, we should have been out of here by 3:30. So, we’re wasting the citizens money now, and we’re not going to have a vote cause we’re going to talk as long as we want, cause we’re in charge and I’m going to prove my point. So therefore, if we could just get passed and be honest to the people and say listen, this is why I’m not for it. I don’t care if you put it on a silver platter, I’m still not going to be for it. But you don’t have a double vote. You don’t have that privilege to be able to say well, I want the project and it’s whatever, but it’s just one T that needs to be crossed. You can’t do that. You gotta either vote it up or you vote it down. And my vote will be to vote it up for this money here. That’s what my vote will be for and it’s not going to be because I got a cousin in it or an uncle in it. I think it’s right and I think it’s what Councilman Lester has said time and time, are we going to be a city or are we going to be a town. And it’s time for us to make that decision and put everything else behind us. Thank You Mr. Chairman

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the fervor of the discussion, but I think we talked about representing and I think Councilman Carmody has been on record before as well as Councilman Hogan has said about people’s vote and the vote of the people in regards to this. We have obviously dealt with that sometime in the past. And we have a representative form of government. And this democracy affords us the opportunity to elect people to represent us. Very often and even today, if we look at the minutes, more than five or six times, Councilmen have referred to the fact that they represent the people in their districts. And that the people in their districts tell them things and so on and so forth. Obviously, we don’t have a referendum driven form of government on every subject, but there are things that the law suggest that there ought to be a referendum for. And while I certainly can agree and believe that as my colleagues have said, that things that the people ought to vote on , the State of Louisiana, we are bound by laws that our people must vote on certain things. At then end of the day gentlemen, it seems like this is not one of those things that by law. Certainly by our choice, we could certainly have done it. But by law, I think we don’t have an argument with regards to whether or not we are violating the law. That being the case, and our philosophical leanings aside, what we have not done is dealt with the issue. Very seldom, whether folks go to court and all, and what has not happened is we’re not dealing with the issue. And the issue at hand right now, and perhaps we cannot. Maybe we don’t have the ability to deal with the issue if our philosophy or our principals won’t let us deal with it. Because this is not about a public vote. This is about voting on this ordinance as amended which is before us with regards to the issuance of $40,000,000 in revenue bonds. Again, you have to vote whatever is your respective, whatever you feel like the people in our districts would want you to do. But at some point, we have to consider the issue. And the issue is not a public vote at this point. We’ve dealt with that, the Council has voted in due form and we voted in legal fashion, and we know what the vote has been. We now have before us an issue that’s really not garnering our attention. It’s not really getting our attention, it’s not really getting gravity at all because we said, lets go back and deal with this other thing. When that’s not the central or seminal issue in Ordinance No. 14. We’re being unfair to the people we represent because we really are not talking about the issue. We’re talking about our philosophical leanings that allow us to deal with or not to deal with the issue. I don’t think not dealing with the issue ought to be an option Mr. Chairman. I think at some point, we have to start talking about what’s on the table and deal with it as it is. Vote up or down and lets please, with all due respect, move forward. With that Mr. Chairman, I’d like to call for the question.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Walford to call for the question and end debate. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Green, and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilmen Gibson and Hogan. 2.

Motion to postpone fails by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Green, And Jackson. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Gibson, and Hogan. 3.

Councilman Gibson: Then as the Chairman, I’m gonna, seeing that we’re voting on the motion, we still have debate. And seeing that I was cut off with a question, I am going to get my comments on this particular matter.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, the maker of the motion gets first debate.

Councilman Green: I was the maker of the motion. Mr. Chairman, I gave you ample enough time to speak, so.

Councilman Gibson: I passed it up and down. I was expecting to have a last shot at it. I even went to Councilman Jackson to give him the opportunity.

Councilman Green: And here again Mr. Mayor is what I just said. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is one more shot at you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Green. This isn’t a shot at anybody Councilman.

Councilman Green: That’s what you say Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: No, to get my last comment in. Again, this is a unique project. I agree that it is a needed project for the City of Shreveport. I have philosophically disagreed with tax payer money going into this project, especially when I am asked by my constituents on a routine basis what do we do about crime, what do we do about streets, what do we do about drainage, what do we do about sanitation, and other city services? We raised water rates.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, Point of Order.

Councilman Gibson: Your Point of Order please?

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, I was thinking that you were having debate specifically on the amended ordinance.

Councilman Gibson: I am.

Councilman Jackson: But I thought you had said water rates. I’m sorry. I thought you said water rates.

Councilman Gibson: It ties into the City services in terms of how these taxes are being spent Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, these revenue bonds are not for water.

Councilman Gibson: I will strike my comments on water rates and focus on infrastructure.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chairman, you have not dealt with the Point of Order.

Councilman Jackson: If we’re going to talk about the ordinance as amended, I rescind my Point of Order.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Jackson. I am philosophically opposed to using tax payer money to go into the hotel. I applaud the Administration for their aggressive approach., their aggressive style in terms of when they ran for office. But when we talk about being a City and a Town, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are a City. As a group of businessmen told me the other day, we are a $1,000,000,000 city. That is the debt service or the debt that the City of Shreveport currently has. That’s the price of being aggressive. That is the price of being aggressive, and again, when I cast my vote, on this main motion, it has to do philosophically – do I have to ask myself everyday in front of my constituents, do you pay taxes? Do you pay sales taxes? Do you pay all the other taxes that are including in these loan agreements to go toward a hotel, to an entertainment district and other things that have been put before this City in the last few years. People pay taxes for streets, water/sewer, drainage, police and fire, sanitation and other city services of which, right now, I can’t look my constituents, I can’t look that mayor in the eye and say, that’s what my constituents pay taxes for. I’ve never had a problem with your aggressiveness Mayor Hightower, never. And I applaud that aggressiveness. But at the same time, my constituents have consistently said over and over again, if my streets were in good shape, if my water and sewer was fine, if my crime was low, and other amenities, hey go spend the money. But how can I cast a vote for $40,000,000 and then turn around and know that they are not satisfied, and can’t make proposals because we’re landlocked everywhere we look. Our General Fund reserves are down to $8.25 million. Our RiverFront money is down to $1.5 million.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, Point of Order.

Councilman Gibson: Your point sir.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to, again the rules suggest that the comments ought to be specifically directed to the ordinances as amended.

Councilman Gibson: That’s fine. So noted. In a wrap up in terms of how my vote’s gonna go toward this particular issue, is because I have to look my constituents in the eye and say, I at the end of the day listened to what my constituents said, and said this tax payer money that’s going into this project is not for basic city services. It’s outside that scope. So with that said, I appreciate the patience of my colleagues and again I appreciate where they’re coming from in terms of their positions on this. And again, sometimes you prevail, sometimes you don’t. But at the end of the day, we’ve all said we have to respond to the needs, wants and desires of our constituents. And this Council for the next two years is going to be faced with some severe financial difficulties starting with pension and other items. Thank you.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a comment if I could. I’ve certainly been frustrated along this path of several years as many of you have. One of the things that frustrates me more than anything else that I continue to hear is ‘our streets will suffer, our water and sewer will suffer, anything will suffer. Lets make it clear to our constituents what we’re talking about. And you’re the mouthpieces that go out and either tell the truth, tell the truth as you believe it, or tell something different. I trust and I believe that everyone on this Council understands how we’re financing this hotel, via revenue bonds. The truth of the whole matter is the piece of property on Market Street nets zero dollars to the City coffers to date. Netted zero yesterday and the day before that, and the day before that. It’s netted zero to the City coffers since it’s been a piece of City property. If we don’t build a hotel, it’s gonna net zero to the citizens of Shreveport. We build a hotel, it will start generating taxes, and an asset for the citizens of Shreveport. We’re going to own it. We can talk about ‘well, maybe we can finance it with G.O. Bonds’. Maybe we could have. But I’ll tell you what the consequences of that would have been. It would have run 100% contrary to what the infrastructure is. If we’ve got $100,000,000 worth of G. O. Bonding capacity to take care of streets, drainage, other infrastructure throughout the City and this Administration and four Council Members would have decided to use the G.O. Bond for a $40,000,000 hotel, it would have left us $60,000,000 available without raising taxes, to do streets, drainage and other infrastructure. Now, you talk about you want a vote of the people. You have to go to a vote of the people to do that, to be able to raise their taxes. That’s something I don’t want to do. No desire to do. And that’s the reasons we’re using revenue bonds. Bonds generated inside the four walls of the hotel or income generated inside the four walls of the hotel, that will repay the revenue bonds. At the end of the day, the project was netting zero, the project will net 17 stories?

Mr. Dark: 14 stories.

Mayor Hightower: 14 stories, 309 rooms and a convention center that will work. So, lets don’t continue to try to sell or put off on the general public that there’s $40,000,000 that’s gone to fix your street, when everyone of you know that is not true. We don’t generate one dime without doing the hotel project on the hotel ground, not one dime. All the money that goes to streets and drainage, water and sewer and every other project we have there being generated now, be it sales taxes, fees or property taxes. None of that’s gonna change. None of that’s gonna change. So, I would urge you when you go out, and you say, ‘well, the Mayor’s building a hotel, $52,000,000 - $40,000,000 whatever it may be, or I’d fix your pothole. You know it’s not true. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: I call for the question.

Councilman Walford: I’ll second.

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Walford to call for the question and end debate. Motion is approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green and Hogan. 6. Nays: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Motion to adopt the ordnance as amended approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Green, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Carmody, Gibson, and Hogan. 3.

4. Ordinance No. 15 of 2005: An ordinance declaring certain adjudicated properties to be surplus and to authorize the Mayor of the City of Shreveport to sell the City of Shreveport’s tax interest in certain surplus adjudicated properties, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester/D/Gibson/F/Green/G/Jackson)

Having passed first reading on February 8, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 17 of 2005: An ordinance amending the 2005 Debt Service Budget.

Having passed first reading on February 8, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 18 of 2005: An ordinance amending the 2005 Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund. Those provide money for the Fire pension issue.

Having passed first reading on February 8, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

7. Ordinance No. 16 of 2005: Zoning – C-10-05: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance, by rezoning property located on the south side of Greenwood Road at its intersection with Junior Place, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence Agriculture District, to I-1 Light Industry District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Jackson)

Having passed first reading on February 8, 2005 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

The adopted Ordinances and Amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 12 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2005 budget for the General Fund to transfer funds to the General Fund from Retained Risk and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 154 of 2004, the 2005 General Fund budget, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Appropriate Transfer from Retained Risk Fund at $4,000,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Fire - Personal Services by $4,000,000.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 154 of 2004 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 12 of 2005, An Ordinance Amending the 2005 General Fund Budget.

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

Delete the portion of the ordinance changing Section 1 (Estimated Receipts) and Section 2 (Appropriations) and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Taxes and Special Assessments by $1,000,000.

Increase Transfer from the Riverfront Fund by $2,800,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease General Government - Operating Reserves by $200,000.

Increase Fire - Personal Services by $4,000,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly

ORDINANCE NO. 13 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 BUDGET FOR THE RETAINED RISK INTERNAL SERVICE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2005 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund to transfer funds to the General Fund and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 155 of 2004, the 2005 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease Operating Reserves by $4,000,000. Appropriate Transfer to General Fund at $4,000,000.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 155 of 2004 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 13 of 2005, An Ordinance Amending the 2005 Budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund.

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

After the “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED” clause, delete the next two lines dealing with Section 2 (Appropriations) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts), decrease Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2005 by $6,000,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations), decrease Liability Reserves by $6,000,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

ORDINANCE NO. 14 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE BY THE LOUISIANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ITS REVENUE BONDS (CITY OF SHREVEPORT/CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT) SERIES 2005; APPROVING THE FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION, EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE TRUST INDENTURE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, CERTIFICATES OR CONTRACTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF THE CITY TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THIS ORDINANCE.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, a political subdivision organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (the "City") has requested that the Authority, as defined below, issue its revenue bonds to finance the, acquiring, owning, constructing and equipping of a convention center hotel to be located in Shreveport, Louisiana (the "Project"), funding a reserve fund, if necessary, and paying costs of issuance therefore; and

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (the "Authority") is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana established for public purposes pursuant to Chapter 10-D of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (La. R.S. 33:4548.1 through 4548.16) (the "Act"); and

WHEREAS, the Act and other constitutional and statutory authority empowers the Authority to issue bonds to provide funds to the beneficiary thereof to allow it to finance and refinance the construction and acquisition of public infrastructure, economic development projects and public works of all types including public facilities; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act and a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") to be entered into by and between the Authority and the City, the Authority will loan to the City funds to finance the Project and/or reimburse the City for capital expenditures previously made in connection therewith under the terms and conditions more fully described in the Loan Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution on January 13, 2005 authorizing the issuance of its not to exceed $40,000,000 Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Bonds (City of Shreveport/Convention Center

Hotel Project) Series 2005 (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Act for the purpose of providing funds to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the State Bond Commission (the "Commission") on January 20, 2005 granted its approval of the issuance of the Bonds and authorized the Authority to proceed with the financing of the Project for the City through the issuance of the Bonds and approved the execution of the Loan Agreement by the City; and

WHEREAS, in consideration of the loan by the Authority pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the City will agree to make payments of principal and interest which will be sufficient to pay or reimburse the payment of the costs of issuance of the Bonds and principal of, interest and other charges relative to the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, all consents and approvals required to be given by public bodies in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds as authorized by the Indenture and as required by the Act have been or will be secured prior to the delivery of the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the City now desires to acknowledge and approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority and the execution and delivery of (i) the Loan Agreement and (ii) all other documents, certificates and contracts ancillary thereto and required in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, to authorize the sale and delivery of the Bonds to Citigroup, the Underwriter (the “Underwriter”) in accordance with a Purchase Contract (the “Purchase Contract”) among the Authority, the City and Underwriter, to authorize the use and distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, to authorize the use, execution and distribution of the Official Statement with respect to the Bonds, and to provide for the execution of all instruments, documents and certificates in connection therewith.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City of Shreveport, acting as the governing authority for the City, that:

SECTION 1. For the purpose of financing the Project, this City Council hereby approves and acknowledges the issuance by the Authority on behalf of the City of not to exceed $40,000,000 of its Revenue Bonds (City of Shreveport/Convention Center Hotel Project) Series 2005 (the "Bonds"). In connection therewith, the City Council hereby authorizes the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, in the form substantially as submitted to the City and filed with the official minutes of the City, subject to such changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the City and Authority. The details of the Bonds and the other provisions of their issuance, security and payment shall be as set forth in the Indenture, said Indenture to be substantially in the form submitted at this meeting and filed with the official minutes of the City, with such additions, omissions and changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and City. The form of Indenture is hereby approved. The Bonds will be issued only as fully registered bonds in the denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds shall mature not later than 30 years from the date of issuance, and shall bear interest at an average interest rate not to exceed seven percent (7%) per annum or a variable rate not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, all as provided in and subject to the terms and conditions of the Indenture.

SECTION 2. The forms and terms of the Indenture and the Loan Agreement are hereby approved substantially as submitted to the City and filed with the official minutes of the City, all of the provisions of which are hereby made a part of this ordinance, with such additions, omissions and changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and City.

SECTION 3. The Bonds shall be sold and purchased pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Purchase Contract. The Mayor and Clerk of the City are hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City, to execute the Purchase Contract reflecting the City’s approval and acceptance of the terms thereof and of the sale to the Underwriter. The use, execution and distribution of the final Official Statement is hereby approved in a form as may be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and the City.

SECTION 4. The Commitment for Municipal Bond Insurance of Ambac Assurance Corporation dated ________, 2005 is hereby accepted and approved.

SECTION 5. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the Authority, to do all things necessary, on the advice of bond counsel to the City and Authority, to effectuate the sale and delivery of the Bonds and to implement this ordinance, including the publication hereof as required by the Act, the execution of agreements, documents or certificates necessary to issue and deliver the Bonds, including but not limited to the final versions of the Loan Agreement. Said officials are hereby further authorized and directed to approve for and on behalf of and in the name of the City any changes, additions or deletions in any of the documents, instruments or certificates referred to in this ordinance, provided that all such changes, additions or deletions, if any, shall be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and City and consistent with and within the authority provided by the Act.

SECTION 6. This City Council hereby approves Regions Bank to serve as Trustee under the Indenture.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 14 of 2005

Amend the Ordinance as follows:

Delete the Ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached Ordinance.

ORDINANCE N0. 15 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES TO BE SURPLUS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO SELL THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S TAX INTEREST IN CERTAIN SURPLUS ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has a tax interest in the herein below described properties which have been adjudicated for the non-payment of City property taxes; and

WHEREAS, the herein below described properties are not needed for public purposes and should be declared surplus properties; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has received offers to purchase its tax interest in the herein below described properties as indicated below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the following described property is hereby declared surplus:

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Shreveport does hereby authorize the sale of its tax interest in the herein below described properties for an amount not less than the offer as indicated

Property No. 1: Legal Description - Lot 84, Edge Hill Annex, Unit #3, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 600, Page 479, of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171403-100-0084-00) Municipal Address - 3635 Catherine Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $4,200.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $9,000.00 DISTRICT G

Property No. 2: Legal Description - Lots 419 & 420, Cedar Grove Addition, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana as per plat recorded in Book 50, Page 389 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171425-058-0421-00) Municipal Address - 280 West 79th Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $700.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $4,500.00 DISTRICT FProperty No. 3: Legal Description - Lot 743, Cedar Grove Addition, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Book 50, Page 389 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171425-070-0743-00) Municipal Address - 336 East 79th Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $700.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $3,500.00 DISTRICT DProperty No. 4: Legal Description - Lot 45, Oak Forest Subdivision, Unit #2, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Book 2236 Page 128 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181419-004-0045-00) Municipal Address - 3009 Yorktown Drive

AMOUNT OFFERED: $4,000.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $1,000.00 DISTRICT A

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport shall be authorized to do any and all things and to sign any and all documents, including Acts of Cash Sale, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney necessary to effectuate the purposes set forth herein.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 16 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GREENWOOD ROAD AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH JUNIOR PLACE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-A, RESIDENCE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRY  DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the south side of Greenwood Road at its intersection with Junior Place, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-A, Residence Agriculture District, to I-1, Light Industry District:

A portion of the J.B. Lewis Lands, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and a portion of abandoned Illinois Central Railroad R-O-W, all lying S of Greenwood Road, beginning at a point where the dividing line between Sections 17 and 18, T17N, R14W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, intersects the N’ly R-O-W of I-20 as dedicated; run NE23'W along said dividing line between said Sections 17 and 18 and also along the W line of Redbud Heights Extension, a distance of 1065.8 feet; run thence N86E19'E a distance of 28.0 feet; run thence N0E03'E a distance of 1940.43 feet to a point being on the SE’ly R-O-W line of Greenwood road as dedicated; run thence S51E15'W a distance of 899.79 feet; run thence S53E54'W a distance of 1593.56 feet (the preceding two courses being along the SE’ly R-O-W line of Greenwood Road as dedicated); run thence S0E04'E a distance of 2058.97 feet; run thence S38E08'E a distance of 174.34 feet to a point being on the N’ly R-O-W line of abandoned Illinois Central Railroad; run thence SW’ly along said R-O-W a distance of 114.31 feet; run thence S0E04'E a distance of 29.85 feet to a point being on the NW’ly R-O-W line of I-20; run thence N68E48'E along said NW’ly R-O-W line of I-20 a distance of 2106.4 feet to the P-O-B, containing 115.61 acres, M/L.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulation:

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan showing landscaping to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator, with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 17 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Charter provides for the amendment of any previously-adopted budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2005 budget for the Debt Service Fund, to adjust appropriations, shift funds among expenditure categories and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 169 of 2004, the 2005 budget for the Debt Service Fund, be amended as follows:

Delete the existing Section 2 (Appropriations) and substitute in lieu thereof the following:

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Debt Service Fund’s receipts for the year 2005:

2005 Requirements - Principal and Interest $43,953,800

Less: Amount Paid by Water and Sewer Fund (176,900)

Less: Operating Transfer (Riverfront Fund) (983,000)

Less: Operating Transfer (General Fund) (6,400,000)

NET EXPENDITURES $36,393,900

Fund Balance 12/31/05 $43,174,000

TOTAL $79,567,900

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 169 of 2004 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other sections of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 18 OF 2005

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 BUDGET FOR THE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Charter provides for the amendment of any previously-adopted budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2005 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, to shift funds among expenditure categories and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 159 of 2004, the 2005 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, be amended as follows:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Transfer to General Fund by $2,800,000.

Decrease Transfer to Debt Service Fund by $2,800,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 159 of 2004 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other sections of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications; and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Ordinance No. 98 of 2004: An ordinance authorizing the Lease of City-Owned property to North Shreveport Development Corporation, Inc. (A/Lester) (Tabled December 27, 2004)

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Lester, is that still tabled?

Councilman Lester: Yes.

2. Alcohol Retail Permit Appeal: Mr. John Hardy, H&H Lounge. (Special Meeting scheduled – February 18, 2005)(B/Walford)

Councilman Gibson: This matter’s been taken care of.

3. Resolution No. 239 of 2004: A resolution approving certain matters with respect to the sublease of space within the Multicultural Center of the South, approving signage for the Center. (B/Walford)(Tabled January 25, 2005)

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson, can you help me? Do we need to go ahead and dispense with that now that we’ve - - -

Mr. Thompson: I would leave it on there. There is one item, the signage that was not taken care of in the latter that we passed. And will probably either be amended or come back to you in a new form. But I would just leave it on.

Councilman Walford: Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. No action on that one.

Councilman Walford: Thank you Councilman Walford.

4. Ordinance No. 3 of 2005: ZONING APPEAL: C-01-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinances by rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Ford & Dale Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)(Remanded to MPC)

NEW BUSINESS: None.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES:

Councilman Gibson: As Infrastructure Chair, I’ve been trying to work with Mr. Strong to get a date. We’re hoping in the next two weeks, we will have an Infrastructure Committee Meeting. He’s provided, in fact you should have received a report at year end on Infrastructure. I hope everyone has gotten a copy. If you haven’t I’ll get Mr. Strong to re-issue it.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure everybody is looking. I noticed that as I read the report, that it was missing a component part. That, that has been sent as a supplemental mailing. I hope that all the Council Members got that.

Councilman Jackson: What’s that?

Councilman Gibson: The year end Infrastructure Report.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I want to just notice that on Tuesday, March 1^st at 1:00, we’ll be having Audit and Finance Committee Meeting.

CLERK’S REPORT

1. Letters of Appeal – Case No. S-5-05: Mr. Larry Higdon and Dr. Edwin Westmoreland; Property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dumbarton Drive and Line Ave. (D/Gibson)

Mr. Thompson: This cannot be decided before March 8, 2005.

Councilman Gibson: Gentlemen, on that particular item, there is a meeting tomorrow night at 6:00 at the Line Avenue, Cedar Grove Library. There’s probably gonna be in excess of about 100 residents of Spring Lake that will be there. That’s in reference to a bank that is being proposed at that intersection. That’s tomorrow, Wednesday, the 23^rd at 6:00 p.m.

2. Letters of Appeal – Case No. BAC-4-05: Mr. Howard G. Allen, Mr. P. B. Joyner, Michael Riddick, and Ms. Angie Day; Property located on the southeast corner of Youree Drive and Anderson. (B/Walford)

Mr. Thompson: This case cannot be decided before March the 8^th.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Thompson, I’ve been getting a tremendous number of calls on No. 2. They have been notified that the appellants that it can’t be heard until - - -

Mr. Thompson: The letters have been sent out stating that. In fact there was a copy of the letter I believe attached to your - - -

Councilman Walford: Oh, okay.

Mr. Thompson: But I don’t know whether it’s been received, but it has been sent.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:21 p.m.

______________________________

//S// Mike Gibson, Chairman

___________________________________

//S// Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council